[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210513140141.GC15289@e120325.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021 15:01:43 +0100
From: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 03:59:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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.
>
That's how I would prefer it - keep the 'little' things
Thanks
---
BR
B.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists