[RFC 2/6] sched: add a new SD SHARE_POWERLINE flag for sched_domain

[Vincent Guittot]

 It looks like i need to describe more what

On 29 October 2012 10:40, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 24 October 2012 17:17, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar at ti.com> wrote:
>> Vincent,
>>
>> Few comments/questions.
>>
>>
>> On Sunday 07 October 2012 01:13 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>
>>> This new flag SD SHARE_POWERLINE reflects the sharing of the power rail
>>> between the members of a domain. As this is the current assumption of the
>>> scheduler, the flag is added to all sched_domain
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot at linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/ia64/include/asm/topology.h |    1 +
>>>   arch/tile/include/asm/topology.h |    1 +
>>>   include/linux/sched.h            |    1 +
>>>   include/linux/topology.h         |    3 +++
>>>   kernel/sched/core.c              |    5 +++++
>>>   5 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/ia64/include/asm/topology.h
>>> b/arch/ia64/include/asm/topology.h
>>> index a2496e4..065c720 100644
>>> --- a/arch/ia64/include/asm/topology.h
>>> +++ b/arch/ia64/include/asm/topology.h
>>> @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ void build_cpu_to_node_map(void);
>>>                                 | SD_BALANCE_EXEC       \
>>>                                 | SD_BALANCE_FORK       \
>>>                                 | SD_WAKE_AFFINE,       \
>>> +                               | arch_sd_share_power_line()            \
>>>         .last_balance           = jiffies,              \
>>>         .balance_interval       = 1,                    \
>>>         .nr_balance_failed      = 0,                    \
>>> diff --git a/arch/tile/include/asm/topology.h
>>> b/arch/tile/include/asm/topology.h
>>> index 7a7ce39..d39ed0b 100644
>>> --- a/arch/tile/include/asm/topology.h
>>> +++ b/arch/tile/include/asm/topology.h
>>> @@ -72,6 +72,7 @@ static inline const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int
>>> node)
>>>                                 | 0*SD_PREFER_LOCAL                     \
>>>                                 | 0*SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER                   \
>>>                                 | 0*SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES              \
>>> +                               | arch_sd_share_power_line()            \
>>>                                 | 0*SD_SERIALIZE                        \
>>>                                 ,                                       \
>>>         .last_balance           = jiffies,                              \
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
>>> index 4786b20..74f2daf 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
>>> @@ -862,6 +862,7 @@ enum cpu_idle_type {
>>>   #define SD_WAKE_AFFINE                0x0020  /* Wake task to waking CPU
>>> */
>>>   #define SD_PREFER_LOCAL               0x0040  /* Prefer to keep tasks
>>> local to this domain */
>>>   #define SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER     0x0080  /* Domain members share cpu power
>>> */
>>> +#define SD_SHARE_POWERLINE     0x0100  /* Domain members share power
>>> domain */
>>
>> If you ignore the current use of SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER, isn't the meaning of
>> CPUPOWER and POWERLINE is same here. Just trying to understand the clear
>> meaning of this new flag. Have you not considered SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER
>> because it is being used for cpu_power and needs at least minimum two
>> domains ? SD_PACKING would have been probably more appropriate based
>> on the way it is being used in further series.
>
> CPUPOWER reflects the share of hw ressources between cores like for
> hyper threading. POWERLINE describes the fact that cores are sharing
> the same power line amore precisely the powergate.

Sorry, the mail has been sent too early while I was writing it

CPUPOWER reflects the share of hw ressources between cores like for
hyper threading. POWERLINE describes the fact that cores are sharing
the same power line and more precisely the same power gating. It looks
like I need to describe more precisely what i would mean with
SHARE_POWERLINE.

I don't want to use PACKING because it's more a behavior than a
feature. If cores can power gate independently (!SD_SHARE_POWERLINE),
packing small tasks is one interesting behavior but it may be not the
only one. I want to make a difference between the HW configuration and
the behavior we want to have above it

Vincent

>>
>> Regards
>> Santosh
>>