[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8a84e658-1c2d-4380-8979-e1cc5bf5768d@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2025 14:01:39 +0100
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>,
Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>
Cc: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@...soc.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
vschneid@...hat.com, vdonnefort@...gle.com, ke.wang@...soc.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/feec: Simplify the traversal of pd'cpus
On 14.08.25 10:52, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> Hi Dietmar,
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 4:46 PM Dietmar Eggemann
> <dietmar.eggemann@....com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12.08.25 10:33, Xuewen Yan wrote:
[...]
>> Can you not mask cpus already early in the pd loop (1) and then profit
>> from (2) in these rare cases?
>
> I do not think the cpus_ptr chould place before the pd_cap calc,
> because the following scenario should be considered:
> the task's cpus_ptr cpus: 0,1,2,3
> pd's cpus: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6
> the pd's cap = cpu_cap * 6;
> if we cpumask_and(pd'scpus, p->cpus_ptr),
> the cpumask_weight = 4,
> the pd's cap = cpu_cap *4.
Yes, you're right! Missed this one.
>> IIRC, the sd only plays a role here in
>> exclusive cpusets scenarios which I don't thing anybody deploys with EAS?
>
> I am also wondering if the check for SD's CPUs could be removed...
Still not 100% sure here. I would have to play with cpusets and EAS a
little bit more. Are you thinking that in those cases p->cpus_ptr
already covers the cpuset restriction so that the sd mask isn't necessary?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists