[PATCH v2 2/7] sched: rework of sched_domain topology definition
Peter Zijlstra
peterz at infradead.org
Wed Mar 19 08:41:49 EDT 2014
The keyboard deity gave us delete, please apply graciously when replying
to large emails.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 11:27:12AM +0000, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 18/03/14 17:56, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > + if (sd->flags & SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER) {
> > + sd->imbalance_pct = 110;
> > + sd->smt_gain = 1178; /* ~15% */
> > + sd->flags |= arch_sd_sibling_asym_packing();
> > +
> > + } else if (sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES) {
> > + sd->imbalance_pct = 117;
> > + sd->cache_nice_tries = 1;
> > + sd->busy_idx = 2;
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
> > + } else if (sd->flags & SD_NUMA) {
> > + sd->cache_nice_tries = 2;
> > + sd->busy_idx = 3;
> > + sd->idle_idx = 2;
> > +
> > + sd->flags |= SD_SERIALIZE;
> > + if (sched_domains_numa_distance[tl->numa_level] > RECLAIM_DISTANCE) {
> > + sd->flags &= ~(SD_BALANCE_EXEC |
> > + SD_BALANCE_FORK |
> > + SD_WAKE_AFFINE);
> > + }
> > +
> > +#endif
> > + } else {
> > + sd->flags |= SD_PREFER_SIBLING;
> > + sd->cache_nice_tries = 1;
> > + sd->busy_idx = 2;
> > + sd->idle_idx = 1;
> > + }
>
> This 'if ... else statement' is still a weak point from the perspective
> of making the code robust:
<snip>
> Is there a way to check that MC and GMC have to have
> SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES set so that this can't happen unnoticed?
So from the core codes perspective those names mean less than nothing.
Its just a string to carry along for us meat-bags. The string isn't even
there when !SCHED_DEBUG.
So from this codes POV you told it it had a domain without PKGSHARE,
that's fine.
That said; yeah the thing isn't the prettiest piece of code. But it has
the big advantage of being the one place where we convert topology into
behaviour.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list