lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 6/7] sched/topology: Introduce SD metaflag for flags needing > 1 groups
From
Date
On 01/07/2020 21:06, Valentin Schneider wrote:

[...]

> @@ -105,16 +122,18 @@ SD_FLAG(SD_SERIALIZE, 8, SDF_SHARED_PARENT)
> * Place busy tasks earlier in the domain
> *
> * SHARED_CHILD: Usually set on the SMT level. Technically could be set further
> - * up, but currently assumed to be set from the base domain upwards (see
> - * update_top_cache_domain()).
> + * up, but currently assumed to be set from the base domain
> + * upwards (see update_top_cache_domain()).
> */
> -SD_FLAG(SD_ASYM_PACKING, 9, SDF_SHARED_CHILD)
> +SD_FLAG(SD_ASYM_PACKING, 9, SDF_SHARED_CHILD | SDF_NEEDS_GROUPS)
>
> /*
> * Prefer to place tasks in a sibling domain
> *
> * Set up until domains start spanning NUMA nodes. Close to being a SHARED_CHILD
> * flag, but cleared below domains with SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY.
> + *
> + * NEEDS_GROUPS: Load balancing flag.
> */
> SD_FLAG(SD_PREFER_SIBLING, 10, 0)

Related to my comment in [PATCH v3 5/7], maybe you wanted to add
SDF_NEEDS_GROUPS for SD_PREFER_SIBLING as well ? This comment
'NEEDS_GROUPS: Load balancing flag.' makes me wondering.

Currently, SD_PREFER_SIBLING isn't in SD_DEGENERATE_GROUPS_MASK=0xaef.

[...]

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-02 20:30    [W:0.591 / U:0.764 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site