[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190628065802.GA27699@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 06:58:02 +0000
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v3] sched/isolation: Prefer housekeeping cpu in
local node
* Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com> [2019-06-28 08:43:13]:
>
> +/*
> + * sched_numa_find_closest() - given the NUMA topology, find the cpu
> + * closest to @cpu from @cpumask.
> + * cpumask: cpumask to find a cpu from
> + * cpu: cpu to be close to
> + *
> + * returns: cpu, or >= nr_cpu_ids when nothing found (or !NUMA).
One nit:
I dont see sched_numa_find_closest returning anything greater than
nr_cpu_ids. So 's/>= //' for the above comment.
> + */
> +int sched_numa_find_closest(const struct cpumask *cpus, int cpu)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> + int i, j = cpu_to_node(cpu);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < sched_domains_numa_levels; i++) {
> + cpu = cpumask_any_and(cpus, sched_domains_numa_masks[i][j]);
> + if (cpu < nr_cpu_ids)
> + return cpu;
> + }
> +#endif
> + return nr_cpu_ids;
> +}
> +
Should we have a static function for sched_numa_find_closest instead of
having #ifdef in the function?
> static int __sdt_alloc(const struct cpumask *cpu_map)
> {
> struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl;
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju
Powered by blists - more mailing lists