Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] sched: ARM: create a dedicated scheduler topology table

2014-04-25 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 06:04:19PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > The example above is consistent because CPU2 mask and CPU0 mask are > > fully exclusive > > > > so > > CPU0: cpu_corepower_mask=0-1 > > CPU2: cpu_corepower_mask=2 > > are consistent > > > > CPU0: cpu_corepower_mask=0-2 > > CPU2:

Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] sched: ARM: create a dedicated scheduler topology table

2014-04-25 Thread Peter Zijlstra
> The example above is consistent because CPU2 mask and CPU0 mask are > fully exclusive > > so > CPU0: cpu_corepower_mask=0-1 > CPU2: cpu_corepower_mask=2 > are consistent > > CPU0: cpu_corepower_mask=0-2 > CPU2: cpu_corepower_mask=0-2 > are also consistent > > but > > CPU0: cpu_corepower_mask=

Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] sched: ARM: create a dedicated scheduler topology table

2014-04-25 Thread Dietmar Eggemann
On 25/04/14 08:45, Vincent Guittot wrote: [...] >> >> Back than I had >> CPU0: cpu_corepower_mask=0-1 >> CPU2: cpu_corepower_mask=2 >> so for GMC level the cpumasks are inconsistent across CPUs and it worked. > > The example above is consistent because CPU2 mask and CPU0 mask are > fully exc

Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] sched: ARM: create a dedicated scheduler topology table

2014-04-25 Thread Vincent Guittot
On 24 April 2014 14:48, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 24/04/14 08:30, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> On 23 April 2014 17:26, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: >>> On 23/04/14 15:46, Vincent Guittot wrote: On 23 April 2014 13:46, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > Hi, > > [...] > >> >> More than the flag that is

Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] sched: ARM: create a dedicated scheduler topology table

2014-04-24 Thread Dietmar Eggemann
On 24/04/14 08:30, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On 23 April 2014 17:26, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: >> On 23/04/14 15:46, Vincent Guittot wrote: >>> On 23 April 2014 13:46, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: Hi, [...] > > More than the flag that is used for the example, it's about the > cpumask which are in

Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] sched: ARM: create a dedicated scheduler topology table

2014-04-24 Thread Vincent Guittot
On 23 April 2014 17:26, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 23/04/14 15:46, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> On 23 April 2014 13:46, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: >>> Hi, >>> [snip] >> You have an inconsistency in your topology description: > > That's true functional-wise but I think that this is not the reason w

Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] sched: ARM: create a dedicated scheduler topology table

2014-04-23 Thread Dietmar Eggemann
On 23/04/14 15:46, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On 23 April 2014 13:46, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to use this approach of specifying different per-cpu views on >> sd flags on DIE level on a TC2 platform (cluster 0 w/ CPU0/1 and cluster >> 1 w/ CPU2/3/4 w/o SMT). It doesn't work l

Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] sched: ARM: create a dedicated scheduler topology table

2014-04-23 Thread Vincent Guittot
On 23 April 2014 13:46, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to use this approach of specifying different per-cpu views on > sd flags on DIE level on a TC2 platform (cluster 0 w/ CPU0/1 and cluster > 1 w/ CPU2/3/4 w/o SMT). It doesn't work like in the case for the GMC/MC > sd level. > > If

Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] sched: ARM: create a dedicated scheduler topology table

2014-04-23 Thread Dietmar Eggemann
Hi, I'm trying to use this approach of specifying different per-cpu views on sd flags on DIE level on a TC2 platform (cluster 0 w/ CPU0/1 and cluster 1 w/ CPU2/3/4 w/o SMT). It doesn't work like in the case for the GMC/MC sd level. If I use the following patch (just to illustrate the issue) on to

[PATCH v4 5/5] sched: ARM: create a dedicated scheduler topology table

2014-04-11 Thread Vincent Guittot
Create a dedicated topology table for ARM which will create new level to differentiate CPUs that can or not powergate independantly from others. The patch gives an example of how to add domain that will take advantage of SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN. Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot --- arch/arm/kernel/t