[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201204143115.GB3371@techsingularity.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 14:31:15 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Ziljstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Linux-ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/10] sched/fair: Clear the target CPU from the cpumask
of CPUs searched
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:47:48PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > IIUC, select_idle_core and select_idle_cpu share the same cpumask(select_idle_mask)?
> > If the target's sibling is removed from select_idle_mask from select_idle_core(),
> > select_idle_cpu() will lose the chance to pick it up?
>
> This is only relevant for patch 10 which is not to be included IIUC
> what mel said in cover letter : "Patches 9 and 10 are stupid in the
> context of this series."
>
Patch 10 was stupid in the context of the prototype because
select_idle_core always returned a CPU. A variation ended up being
reintroduced at the end of the Series Yet To Be Posted so that SMT siblings
are cleared during select_idle_core() but select_idle_cpu() still has a
mask with unvisited CPUs to consider if no idle cores are found.
As far as I know, this would still be compatible with Aubrey's idle
cpu mask as long as it's visited and cleared between select_idle_core
and select_idle_cpu. It relaxes the contraints on Aubrey to some extent
because the idle cpu mask would be a hint so if the information is out
of date, an idle cpu may still be found the normal way.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists