Hi Srikar,
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 12:15:04PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Gautham R Shenoy [2020-07-17 11:30:11]:
>
> > Hi Srikar,
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:06:18AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > Current code assumes that cpumask of cpus sharing a l2-cache mask will
> >
* Gautham R Shenoy [2020-07-17 11:30:11]:
> Hi Srikar,
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:06:18AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > Current code assumes that cpumask of cpus sharing a l2-cache mask will
> > always be a superset of cpu_sibling_mask.
> >
> > Lets stop that assumption.
> >
> > Cc:
Hi Srikar,
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:06:18AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> Current code assumes that cpumask of cpus sharing a l2-cache mask will
> always be a superset of cpu_sibling_mask.
>
> Lets stop that assumption.
>
> Cc: linuxppc-dev
> Cc: Michael Ellerman
> Cc: Nick Piggin
>
* Oliver O'Halloran [2020-07-14 15:40:09]:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 2:45 PM Srikar Dronamraju
> wrote:
> >
> > Current code assumes that cpumask of cpus sharing a l2-cache mask will
> > always be a superset of cpu_sibling_mask.
> >
> > Lets stop that assumption.
>
> It's been a while since I
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 2:45 PM Srikar Dronamraju
wrote:
>
> Current code assumes that cpumask of cpus sharing a l2-cache mask will
> always be a superset of cpu_sibling_mask.
>
> Lets stop that assumption.
It's been a while since I looked, but I'm pretty sure the scheduler
requires child
