[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YJ0wuY1uDVbvTxRT@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 15:59:21 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
valentin.schneider@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
corbet@....net, rdunlap@...radead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] sched/topology: Rework CPU capacity asymmetry
detection
On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 02:48:32PM +0100, Beata Michalska wrote:
> > > Where:
> > > arch_scale_cpu_capacity(L) = 512
> > > arch_scale_cpu_capacity(M) = 871
> > > arch_scale_cpu_capacity(B) = 1024
> >
> > Low, High
> > Small, Big
> >
> > But you appear to have picked: Low and Big, which just doesn't make any
> > sense. (Worse, L can also be Large :-)
> >
> (L)ittle, (M)edium, (B)ig
> I can re-arrange the abbreviations used here.
Duh, I must really be having a bad day for not thinking of Little. I
don't think you need to change this. S,M,L would be like a clothing
store, but steps away from the big.Little thing.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists