[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200414124503.GA236568@google.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 13:45:03 +0100
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
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>,
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 Wednesday 08 Apr 2020 at 19:03:57 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Or we can do the opposite and only use capacity_orig_of()/rq->cpu_capacity_orig.
>
> Is there a case where the max cpu capacity changes over time ? So I
> would prefer to use cpu_capacity_orig which is a field of scheduler
> instead of always calling an external arch specific function
Note however that using arch_scale_cpu_capacity() would be more
efficient, especially on non-arm/arm64 systems where it is a
compile-time constant.
It's probably a matter of personal taste, but I find rq->cpu_capacity_orig
superfluous. It wastes space without actually giving you anything no?
Anybody remembers why it was introduced in the first place?
Thanks,
Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists