[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <42cc3878-4c57-96ba-3ebd-1b4d4ef87fae@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 18:30:54 +0200
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@...tannapisa.it>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Wei Wang <wvw@...gle.com>, Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Alessio Balsini <balsini@...gle.com>,
Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched/topology: Store root domain CPU capacity sum
On 08.04.20 14:29, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 11:50, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
[...]
>> /**
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> index 8344757bba6e..74b0c0fa4b1b 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> @@ -2052,12 +2052,17 @@ build_sched_domains(const struct cpumask *cpu_map, struct sched_domain_attr *att
>> /* Attach the domains */
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> for_each_cpu(i, cpu_map) {
>> + unsigned long cap = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(i);
>
> Why do you replace the use of rq->cpu_capacity_orig by
> arch_scale_cpu_capacity(i) ?
> There is nothing about this change in the commit message
True. And I can change this back.
It seems though that the solution is not sufficient because of the
'rd->span &nsub cpu_active_mask' issue discussed under patch 2/4.
But this remind me of another question I have.
Currently we use arch_scale_cpu_capacity() more often (16 times) than
capacity_orig_of()/rq->cpu_capacity_orig .
What's hindering us to remove rq->cpu_capacity_orig and the code around
it and solely rely on arch_scale_cpu_capacity()? I mean the arch
implementation should be fast.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists