On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:56:23PM -0300, Lauro Venancio wrote:
> > Another thing I've been thinking about; I think we can do away with the
> > kzalloc() in build_group_from_child_sched_domain() and use the sdd->sg
> > storage.
> I considered this too. I decided to do not change this because I
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:56:23PM -0300, Lauro Venancio wrote:
> > Another thing I've been thinking about; I think we can do away with the
> > kzalloc() in build_group_from_child_sched_domain() and use the sdd->sg
> > storage.
> I considered this too. I decided to do not change this because I
On 04/25/2017 12:39 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:27:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:22:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:12:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
But I'll first try and figure out why I'm not
On 04/25/2017 12:39 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:27:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:22:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:12:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
But I'll first try and figure out why I'm not
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:39:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:27:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Ah! the asymmetric setup, where @sibling is entirely uninitialized for
> > the top domain.
Like so then...
--- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
+++
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:39:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:27:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Ah! the asymmetric setup, where @sibling is entirely uninitialized for
> > the top domain.
Like so then...
--- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
+++
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:27:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:22:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:12:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > But I'll first try and figure out why I'm not having empty masks.
> >
> > Ah, so this is
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:27:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:22:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:12:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > But I'll first try and figure out why I'm not having empty masks.
> >
> > Ah, so this is
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:22:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:12:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > But I'll first try and figure out why I'm not having empty masks.
>
> Ah, so this is before all the degenerate stuff, so there's a bunch of
> redundant domains
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:22:36PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:12:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > But I'll first try and figure out why I'm not having empty masks.
>
> Ah, so this is before all the degenerate stuff, so there's a bunch of
> redundant domains
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:12:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> But I'll first try and figure out why I'm not having empty masks.
Ah, so this is before all the degenerate stuff, so there's a bunch of
redundant domains below that make it work -- and there always will be,
unless FORCE_SD_OVERLAP.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 05:12:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> But I'll first try and figure out why I'm not having empty masks.
Ah, so this is before all the degenerate stuff, so there's a bunch of
redundant domains below that make it work -- and there always will be,
unless FORCE_SD_OVERLAP.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:33:51AM -0300, Lauro Venancio wrote:
> On 04/25/2017 09:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > With the fact that sched_group_cpus(sd->groups) ==
> > sched_domain_span(sibling->child) (if child exists) established in the
> > previous patches, could we not simplify this like
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:33:51AM -0300, Lauro Venancio wrote:
> On 04/25/2017 09:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > With the fact that sched_group_cpus(sd->groups) ==
> > sched_domain_span(sibling->child) (if child exists) established in the
> > previous patches, could we not simplify this like
On 04/25/2017 09:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:11:59PM -0300, Lauro Venancio wrote:
>> On 04/24/2017 10:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:51:43PM -0300, Lauro Ramos Venancio wrote:
>>>
diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c
On 04/25/2017 09:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:11:59PM -0300, Lauro Venancio wrote:
>> On 04/24/2017 10:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:51:43PM -0300, Lauro Ramos Venancio wrote:
>>>
diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:11:59PM -0300, Lauro Venancio wrote:
> On 04/24/2017 10:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:51:43PM -0300, Lauro Ramos Venancio wrote:
> >
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> >> index e77c93a..694e799 100644
> >>
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:11:59PM -0300, Lauro Venancio wrote:
> On 04/24/2017 10:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:51:43PM -0300, Lauro Ramos Venancio wrote:
> >
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> >> index e77c93a..694e799 100644
> >>
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:19:47PM -0300, Lauro Venancio wrote:
> On 04/24/2017 11:27 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> Also, would it not make sense to re-order patch 2 to come after this,
> >>> such that we _do_ have the group_mask available and don't have to jump
> >>> through hoops in order to
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:19:47PM -0300, Lauro Venancio wrote:
> On 04/24/2017 11:27 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>> Also, would it not make sense to re-order patch 2 to come after this,
> >>> such that we _do_ have the group_mask available and don't have to jump
> >>> through hoops in order to
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:11:59PM -0300, Lauro Venancio wrote:
> On 04/24/2017 10:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:51:43PM -0300, Lauro Ramos Venancio wrote:
> >
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> >> index e77c93a..694e799 100644
> >>
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:11:59PM -0300, Lauro Venancio wrote:
> On 04/24/2017 10:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:51:43PM -0300, Lauro Ramos Venancio wrote:
> >
> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> >> index e77c93a..694e799 100644
> >>
On 04/24/2017 11:27 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 04:19:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:03:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>>> Also, would it not make sense to re-order patch 2 to come after this,
>>> such that we _do_ have the group_mask
On 04/24/2017 11:27 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 04:19:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:03:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>>> Also, would it not make sense to re-order patch 2 to come after this,
>>> such that we _do_ have the group_mask
On 04/24/2017 10:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:51:43PM -0300, Lauro Ramos Venancio wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> index e77c93a..694e799 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> @@ -505,7
On 04/24/2017 10:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:51:43PM -0300, Lauro Ramos Venancio wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> index e77c93a..694e799 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
>> @@ -505,7
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 04:19:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:03:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Also, would it not make sense to re-order patch 2 to come after this,
> > such that we _do_ have the group_mask available and don't have to jump
> > through
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 04:19:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:03:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Also, would it not make sense to re-order patch 2 to come after this,
> > such that we _do_ have the group_mask available and don't have to jump
> > through
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:03:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Also, would it not make sense to re-order patch 2 to come after this,
> such that we _do_ have the group_mask available and don't have to jump
> through hoops in order to link up the sgc? Afaict we don't actually use
> the sgc
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 03:03:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Also, would it not make sense to re-order patch 2 to come after this,
> such that we _do_ have the group_mask available and don't have to jump
> through hoops in order to link up the sgc? Afaict we don't actually use
> the sgc
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:51:43PM -0300, Lauro Ramos Venancio wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> index e77c93a..694e799 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> @@ -505,7 +507,11 @@ static void build_group_mask(struct
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 04:51:43PM -0300, Lauro Ramos Venancio wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> index e77c93a..694e799 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
> @@ -505,7 +507,11 @@ static void build_group_mask(struct
An overlap sched group may not be installed in all cpus that compose the
group. Currently, the group balance cpu may be a cpu where the group is
not installed, causing two problems:
1) Two groups may have the same group balance cpu and, as consequence,
share the sched_group_capacity.
2)
An overlap sched group may not be installed in all cpus that compose the
group. Currently, the group balance cpu may be a cpu where the group is
not installed, causing two problems:
1) Two groups may have the same group balance cpu and, as consequence,
share the sched_group_capacity.
2)
34 matches
Mail list logo