On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 05:51:23PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 03:41:01PM +, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 02:47:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > ? possibly with:
> > >
> > > else
> > >
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 05:51:23PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 03:41:01PM +, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 02:47:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > ? possibly with:
> > >
> > > else
> > >
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 05:39:27PM +, Quentin Perret wrote:
> AFAIU it should be safe, but without your check you'll have to go through
> cpus_read_lock()/unlock() every time a CPU is hotplugged. There is probably
> no good reason to re-do that again and again if the state of the key
> never
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 05:39:27PM +, Quentin Perret wrote:
> AFAIU it should be safe, but without your check you'll have to go through
> cpus_read_lock()/unlock() every time a CPU is hotplugged. There is probably
> no good reason to re-do that again and again if the state of the key
> never
Hi Morten,
On Friday 16 Feb 2018 at 15:41:01 (+), Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 02:47:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 04:20:48PM +, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > > +static void update_asym_cpucapacity(int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > + if
Hi Morten,
On Friday 16 Feb 2018 at 15:41:01 (+), Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 02:47:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 04:20:48PM +, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > > +static void update_asym_cpucapacity(int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > + if
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 03:41:01PM +, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 02:47:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 04:20:48PM +, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > > +static void update_asym_cpucapacity(int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > + if
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 03:41:01PM +, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 02:47:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 04:20:48PM +, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > > +static void update_asym_cpucapacity(int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > + if
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 02:47:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 04:20:48PM +, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > +static void update_asym_cpucapacity(int cpu)
> > +{
> > + if (!static_branch_unlikely(_asym_cpucapacity) &&
> > + lowest_flag_domain(cpu,
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 02:47:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 04:20:48PM +, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > +static void update_asym_cpucapacity(int cpu)
> > +{
> > + if (!static_branch_unlikely(_asym_cpucapacity) &&
> > + lowest_flag_domain(cpu,
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 04:20:48PM +, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> +static void update_asym_cpucapacity(int cpu)
> +{
> + if (!static_branch_unlikely(_asym_cpucapacity) &&
> + lowest_flag_domain(cpu, SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY))
> + static_branch_enable(_asym_cpucapacity);
> +}
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 04:20:48PM +, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> +static void update_asym_cpucapacity(int cpu)
> +{
> + if (!static_branch_unlikely(_asym_cpucapacity) &&
> + lowest_flag_domain(cpu, SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY))
> + static_branch_enable(_asym_cpucapacity);
> +}
The existing asymmetric cpu capacity code should cause minimal overhead
for others. Putting it behind a static_key, it has been done for SMT
optimizations, would make it easier to extend and improve without
causing harm to others moving forward.
cc: Ingo Molnar
cc: Peter
The existing asymmetric cpu capacity code should cause minimal overhead
for others. Putting it behind a static_key, it has been done for SMT
optimizations, would make it easier to extend and improve without
causing harm to others moving forward.
cc: Ingo Molnar
cc: Peter Zijlstra
14 matches
Mail list logo