[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180219114930.GA4589@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:49:30 +0000
From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@...s.arm.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
valentin.schneider@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] sched: Add static_key for asymmetric cpu capacity
optimizations
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 05:51:23PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 03:41:01PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 02:47:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > ? possibly with:
> > >
> > > else
> > > static_branch_disable(&sched_asym_cpucapacity);
> > >
> > > if you want to play funny games :-)
> >
> > I thought about that too. It could make certain hotplug scenarios even
> > more expensive. I think we want the sched_asym_cpucapacity code to behave
> > even if SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY isn't set anywhere, so the static key would
> > be permanently from the point we detect asymmetry and leave it set. This
> > would be in line with how the smt static key works.
>
> Fair enough..
Yeah, we can always add the 'else' bit later if we find a good reason to
do so.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists