On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 18:20 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: > > How is this related to sched? And please stop writing lengthy sentences in > the subject line.
> > From: Tim Chen <[email protected]> > > > > Provides x86 with arch_update_cpu_topology function. This function > > allows us to indicate that a condition is detected that the sched > > domain of x86 needs a complete rebuild. > scheduler domains are not x86 specific .... > > > > This is done by setting the x86_topology_update flag. > So without reading the patch I expect that the function sets the > x86_topology_update flag. Crap. > > What you really want to say is: > > The scheduler calls arch_update_cpu_topology() to check whether the > scheduler domains have to be rebuilt. > > So far x86 has no requirement for this, but the upcoming IMTI support > makes this necessary. > > Request the rebuild when the x86 internal update flag is set. > > Or something along these lines. Changelog is a important part of a patch, > really.. Sure. Will do. > > > > > +/* Flag to indicate if a complete sched domain rebuild is required */ > > +bool x86_topology_update; > > + > > +int arch_update_cpu_topology(void) > > +{ > > + if (x86_topology_update) { > > + x86_topology_update = false; > > + return 1; > > + } else > > + return 0; > That lacks braces around the else path, but why aren't you just doing the > obvious: > > if (!x86_topology_update) > return false; > > x86_topology_update = false; > return true; > > That would be too simple to read, right?; Sure. Will do. > > Thanks, > > tglx
