linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 02/17] ARM: Revert back to default scheduler topology.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <jhjzh6ydvwm.mognet@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Aug 2020 23:27:05 +0100
From:   Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        peterz@...radead.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
        morten.rasmussen@....com, Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/17] ARM: Revert back to default scheduler topology.


On 13/08/20 20:16, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com> wrote:
>
>> The ARM-specific GMC level is meant to be built using the thread sibling
>> mask, but no devicetree in arch/arm/boot/dts uses the 'thread' cpu-map
>> binding. With SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN gone, this topology level can be
>> removed, at which point ARM no longer benefits from having a custom defined
>> topology table.
>>
>> Delete the GMC topology level by making ARM use the default scheduler
>> topology table. This essentially reverts commit
>>
>>   fb2aa85564f4 ("sched, ARM: Create a dedicated scheduler topology table")
>>
>> Cc: Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
>> Suggested-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
>> Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
>> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
>
> Minor changelog nit, it's helpful to add this final sentence:
>
>     No change in functionality is expected.
>
> ( If indeed no change in functionality is expected. ;-)
>

Right, that's indeed the case here given the GMC domain would always be
degenerated anyway.

> Thanks,
>
>       Ingo