On 02/07/20 19:29, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > 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. >
You're right, that's a fail from my end. Thanks (and sorry)! > [...]
