On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 22:58 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > > so what if there are two CPU packages
> > > and there are highest_perf differences in both, and we first enumerate
> > > the first package entirely before getting to the second one?
> > > 
> > > In that case we'll schedule the work item after enumerating the first
> > > package and it may rebuild the sched domains before all priorities are
> > > set for the second package, may it not?
> > That is not a problem.  For the second package, all the cpu priorities
> > are initialized to the same value.  So even if we start to do
> > asym_packing in the scheduler for the whole system,
> > on the second package, all the cpus are treated equally by the scheduler.
> > We will operate as if there is no favored core till we update the
> > priorities of the cpu on the second package.
> OK
> 
> But updating those priorities after we have set the "ITMT capable"
> flag is not a problem?  Nobody is going to be confused and so on?
> 

Not a problem.  The worst thing that could happen is we schedule a job
to a cpu with a lesser max turbo freq first while the priorities update are in
progress.

> > 
> > That said, we don't enable ITMT automatically for 2 package system.
> > So the explicit sysctl command to enable ITMT and cause the sched domain
> > rebuild for 2 package system is most likely to come after
> > we have discovered and set all the cpu priorities.
> Right, but if that behavior is relied on, there should be a comment
> about that in the code (and relying on it would be kind of fragile for
> that matter).

No, we don't rely on this behavior of not enabling ITMT automatically
for 2 package system.  We could enable ITMT for 2
package system by default if we want to.  Then asym_packing will just
consider the second package's cpus to be equal priorities if they haven't
been set.  

> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This seems to require some more consideration.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > +               /*
> > > > +                * Since this function is in the hotcpu notifier 
> > > > callback
> > > > +                * path, submit a task to workqueue to call
> > > > +                * sched_set_itmt_support().
> > > > +                */
> > > > +               schedule_work(&sched_itmt_work);
> > > It doesn't make sense to do this more than once IMO and what if we
> > > attempt to schedule the work item again when it has been scheduled
> > > once already?  Don't we need any protection here?
> > It is not a problem for sched_set_itmt_support to be called more than
> > once.
> While it is not incorrect, it also is not particularly useful to
> schedule a work item just to find out later that it had nothing to do
> to begin with.

Setting ITMT capability is done per socket during system boot.  So there is no
performance impact at all so it should not be an issue.

Tim

Reply via email to