[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZhhcPwFCgxDUhndo@DESKTOP-IR8JFSN.>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 16:55:11 -0500
From: Kyle Meyer <kyle.meyer@....com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yury.norov@...il.com,
linux@...musvillemoes.dk, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
russ.anderson@....com, dimitri.sivanich@....com, steve.wahl@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] sched/topology: Optimize topology_span_sane()
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 01:38:46PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 04:33:11PM -0500, Kyle Meyer wrote:
> > Optimize topology_span_sane() by removing duplicate comparisons.
> >
> > Since topology_span_sane() is called inside of for_each_cpu(), each
> > pervious CPU has already been compared against every other CPU. The
>
> previous
Thank you for pointing that out. Should I send an updated version or can
a maintainer correct my mistake?
> > current CPU only needs to be compared against higher-numbered CPUs.
> >
> > The total number of comparisons is reduced from N * (N - 1) to
> > N * (N - 1) / 2 on each non-NUMA scheduling domain level.
>
> Thank you, now it makes sense.
Thanks,
Kyle Meyer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists