Re: [PATCH v4 03/10] sched/topology: Propagate SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY upwards

* Valentin Schneider wrote: > We currently set this flag *only* on domains whose topology level exactly > match the level where we detect asymmetry (as returned by > asym_cpu_capacity_level()). This is rather problematic. > > Say there are two clusters in the system, one with a lone big CPU

Re: [PATCH v4 03/10] sched/topology: Propagate SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY upwards

On 06/08/20 15:20, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Valentin Schneider wrote: > >> We currently set this flag *only* on domains whose topology level exactly >> match the level where we detect asymmetry (as returned by >> asym_cpu_capacity_level()). This is rather problematic. >> >> Say there are two

Re: [PATCH v4 03/10] sched/topology: Propagate SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY upwards

* Valentin Schneider wrote: > This does sound sensible; I can shuffle this around for v5. Thanks! > FWIW the reason I had this very patch before the instrumentation is that > IMO it really wants to be propagated and could thus directly be tagged with > SDF_SHARED_PARENT when the

[PATCH v4 03/10] sched/topology: Propagate SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY upwards

We currently set this flag *only* on domains whose topology level exactly match the level where we detect asymmetry (as returned by asym_cpu_capacity_level()). This is rather problematic. Say there are two clusters in the system, one with a lone big CPU and the other with a mix of big and LITTLE