[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGsJ_4xZD0sG0Df666f0bvHOzuPMjnw0dN_mArER5k1pJ6LPLw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 22:15:39 +1300
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Guodong Xu <guodong.xu@...aro.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
"Cc: Len Brown" <lenb@...nel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, msys.mizuma@...il.com,
"Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
yangyicong <yangyicong@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 0/3] Represent cluster topology and enable load
balance between clusters
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 8:50 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 04:22:46PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> > On Fri, 2021-10-01 at 16:57 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > The one questino I have is, do we want default y?
> >
> > I also agree that default y is preferable.
>
> I'll change at least the x86 one to:
>
> default y
> depends on SMP
>
> > > The one nit I have is the Kconfig text, I'm not really sure that's
> > > clarifying what a cluster is.
> >
> > Do you have a preference of a different name other than cluster?
> > Or simply better documentation on what a cluster is for ARM64
> > and x86 in Kconfig?
>
> Yes, better wording as to what a cluster is. Currently the x86 and arm64
> ones actually differ:
>
> x86:
> help
> Cluster scheduler support improves the CPU scheduler's decision
> making when dealing with machines that have clusters of CPUs
> sharing L2 cache. If unsure say N here.
>
> arm64:
> help
> Cluster scheduler support improves the CPU scheduler's decision
> making when dealing with machines that have clusters(sharing internal
> bus or sharing LLC cache tag). If unsure say N here.
>
>
> (also, all this stuff being replicated across arch/*/Kconfig seems
> unfortunate)
perhaps worth a separate patchset to do some cleanup so that SCHED_MC,
SCHED_SMT etc
won't be replicated in different architectures. Right now, this kind
of Kconfig option is copied
everywhere. I am seeing SCHED_SMT in all of
arch/arm/Kconfig
arch/arm64/Kconfig
arch/ia64/Kconfig
arch/mips/Kconfig
arch/powerpc/Kconfig
arch/s390/Kconfig
arch/sparc/Kconfig
arch/x86/Kconfig
...
Is it a better way to move them to a common Kconfig and let the architectures to
declare things like ARCH_HAVE_SMT?
Thanks
Barry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists