[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160511180421.GX2839@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 19:04:21 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, clm@...com,
mgalbraith@...e.de, tglx@...utronix.de, fweisbec@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/7] sched: Replace sd_busy/nr_busy_cpus with
sched_domain_shared
On Wed, 11 May, at 07:37:52PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:55:56PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
>
> > This breaks my POWER7 box which presumably doesn't have SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES,
>
> > index 978b3ef2d87e..d27153adee4d 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -7920,7 +7920,8 @@ static inline void set_cpu_sd_state_busy(void)
> > goto unlock;
> > sd->nohz_idle = 0;
> >
> > - atomic_inc(&sd->shared->nr_busy_cpus);
> > + if (sd->shared)
> > + atomic_inc(&sd->shared->nr_busy_cpus);
> > unlock:
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > }
>
>
> Ah, no, the problem is that while it does have SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES (in
> its SMT domain -- SMT threads share all cache after all), I failed to
> connect the sched_domain_shared structure for it.
>
> Does something like this also work?
Yep, it does.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists