Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Plumbers: Tweaking scheduler policy micro-conf RFP | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Wed, 16 May 2012 21:40:42 +0200 |
| |
On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 00:19 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
> Let me take a case of two-socket,quad-core,HT x86 (Nehalem): > > SDTL_SHARE_POWERLINE should be passed along with a cpumask that > represents sd_init_CPU or cpu_cpu_mask today. So the number of > domains we build per-cpu will depend on the topology and the > sched_powersavings settings.
No, the topology should at all time be independent of powersavings, current x86's topology depending on that is one of the biggest warts ever. Also sched_powersavings, doesn't actually exist anymore.
The NHM-EP from your example should do just two levels since mc and cpu are identical, I guess we could add a pass that merges identical masks so you can still specify 3 levels if you want.
The NUMA stuff is done automatically based on SLIT, so you don't need to go above the socket level.
| |