[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <71b7352c-2c27-49d1-8bff-c0500cfa21f1@amd.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 14:53:04 +0530
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
To: "Chen, Yu C" <yu.c.chen@...el.com>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
CC: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Dietmar Eggemann
<dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman
<mgorman@...e.de>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Tim Chen
<tim.c.chen@...el.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, "Libo
Chen" <libo.chen@...cle.com>, Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>, Len Brown
<len.brown@...el.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Gautham R . Shenoy"
<gautham.shenoy@....com>, Zhao Liu <zhao1.liu@...el.com>, "Vinicius Costa
Gomes" <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>, Arjan Van De Ven
<arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] sched: Fix sched domain build error for GNR, CWF
in SNC-3 mode
On 9/12/2025 11:09 AM, Chen, Yu C wrote:
> sched_avg_remote_numa_distance is defined in topology.c with
> CONFIG_NUMA controlled, should we make arch_sched_node_distance()
> be controlled under CONFIG_NUMA too?
Good catch! Given node_distance() too is behind CONFIG_NUMA, I
think we can put this behind CONFIG_NUMA too (including those
declarations in include/linux/sched/topology.h)
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists