* Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> [2021-03-01 16:44:42]: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 02:56:07PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > > On Fri, 2021-02-26 at 22:10 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > > > + if (sched_feat(WA_WAKER) && tnr_busy < tllc_size) > > > + return this_cpu; > > > > I wonder if we need to use a slightly lower threshold on > > very large LLCs, both to account for the fact that the > > select_idle_cpu code may not find the single idle CPU > > among a dozen busy ones, or because on a system with > > hyperthreading we may often be better off picking another > > LLC for HT contention issues? > > > > Maybe we could use "tnr_busy * 4 < > > tllc_size * 3" or > > something like that? > > How about: > > tnr_busy < tllc_size / topology_max_smt_threads() > > ?
Isn't topology_max_smt_threads only for x86 as of today? Or Am I missing out? -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju
