[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170816102500.3e56e659@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 10:25:00 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, juri.lelli@...il.com,
kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for
SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 23:04:14 +0900
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:32:44AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:17:36 +0900
> > Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Yes, that's what I intended. IOW:
> > >
> > > If (we found a proper sd, not having SD_PREFER_SIBLING?)
> > > use the sd;
> > > else if (we found a proper sd, having SD_PREFER_SIBLING?)
> > > use the smallest sd among SD_PREFER_SIBLING sds;
> >
> > BTW, what do you mean by "smallest sd"?
>
> There might be more than one SD_PREFER_SIBLING domain in its hierachy.
> In that case, we have to choose one of them. Imagine the following
> example, in case that the source cpu is cpu 0:
>
> [Domain hierachy for cpu 0]
>
> cpu 0 -+ domain 1 -+
> | SD_PREFER_SIBLING flaged |
> cpu 1 -+ +- domain 2
> | SD_PREFER_SIBLING flaged
> cpu 2 -+---------------------------+
> |
> cpu 3 -+
>
> In this case, we have to choose domain 1 than 2, because cpus in domain 1
> are closer to the source cpu, cpu 0. That's what I meant.
Then you mean "closest sd", at least that makes more sense in the
context.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists