[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180829085738.GS24142@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 10:57:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Andre Wild <wild@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/topology: Use Identity node only if required
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:43:48AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> DIE(j) should be:
>
> cpu_cpu_mask(j) := cpumask_of_node(cpu_to_node(j))
FWIW, I was expecting that to be topology_core_cpumask(), so I'm a
little confused myself just now.
> and NODE(j) should be:
>
> \Union_k cpumask_of_node(k) ; where node_distance(j,k) <= node_distance(0,0)
>
> which, _should_ reduce to:
>
> cpumask_of_node(j)
>
> and thus DIE and NODE _should_ be the same here.
>
> So what's going sideways?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists