+
+static inline int thread_in_smt4core(int x)
+{
+ return x % 4;
+}
Needs a whitespace here though I don't really like the above. Any reason
why you can't use the existing cpu_thread_in_core() ?
I will change it to cpu_thread_in_core()
+unsigned long arch_scale_smt_power(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu)
+{
+ int cpu2;
+ int idle_count = 0;
+
+ struct cpumask *cpu_map = sched_domain_span(sd);
+
+ unsigned long weight = cpumask_weight(cpu_map);
+ unsigned long smt_gain = sd->smt_gain;
More whitespace damage above.
You are better than checkpatch.pl, will fix.
+ if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTRS_POWER7) && weight == 4) {
+ for_each_cpu(cpu2, cpu_map) {
+ if (idle_cpu(cpu2))
+ idle_count++;
+ }
I'm not 100% sure about the use of the CPU feature above. First I wonder
if the right approach is to instead do something like
if (!cpu_has_feature(...) !! weigth < 4)
return default_scale_smt_power(sd, cpu);
Though we may be better off using a ppc_md. hook here to avoid
calculating the weight etc... on processors that don't need any
of that.
I also dislike your naming. I would suggest you change cpu_map to
sibling_map() and cpu2 to sibling (or just c). One thing I wonder is how
sure we are that sched_domain_span() is always going to give us the
threads btw ? If we introduce another sched domain level for NUMA
purposes can't we get confused ?
Right now it's 100% always giving us threads. My development version of
the patch had a BUG_ON() to check this. I expect this to stay the case
in the future as the name of the function is arch_scale_smt_power(),
which clearly denotes threads are expected.
I am not stuck on the names, I'll change it to sibling instead of cpu2
and sibling_map instead of cpu_map. It seems clear to me either way.
As for testing the ! case it seems funcationally equivalent, and mine
seems less confusing.
Having a ppc.md hook with exactly 1 user is pointless, especially since
you'll still have to calculate the weight with the ability to
dynamically disable smt.
Also, how hot is this code path ?
It's every load balance, which is to say not hot, but fairly frequent.
I haven't been able to measure an impact from doing very hairy
calculations (without actually changing the weights) here vs not having
it at all in actual end workloads.
+ /* the following section attempts to tweak cpu power based
+ * on current idleness of the threads dynamically at runtime
+ */
+ if (idle_count == 2 || idle_count == 3 || idle_count == 4) {
if (idle_count > 1) ? :-)
Yes :) Originally I had done different weightings for each of the 3
cases, which gained in some workloads but regressed some others. But
since I'm not doing that anymore I'll fold it down to > 1
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
