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. [...]
