From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/6] sched: rework of sched_domain topology definition
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 11:31:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140311103119.GW9987@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtC1_t78hvOw9u-t1BqUZj_dO3WFYp2OjX=RFZP-A7zSbg@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:32:35PM +0800, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Never got the new name DIE for CPU? Might confuse people when they use
> > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_domain/cpuX/domainY/name or sched_domain_debug_one().
>
> In fact, CPU is also confusing because it's used for different things.
> But if it makes things even more confusing, i can come back to CPU
Yeah, not sure DIE is the right thing either; because there's multi-die
packages that get classified under CPU :-)
Take for example the Core 2 Quad, which was 2 dual core dies glued
together in a single package.
There's also the AMD bulldozer which glued two dies into a single
package; but for those its not a problem because each die is a separate
numa node, so there DIE would actually be the correct term and PACKAGE
would be wrong.
So while CPU sucks, I'm not sure we can come up with anything that's
actually correct. That said; we could try for something less wrong than
CPU :-)
I'm not sure there are a lot of people who see/know the names of these
domains to be bothered by a change in them; it might be limited to just
us for all I know.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
"mingo@kernel.org" <mingo@kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"tony.luck@intel.com" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
"fenghua.yu@intel.com" <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
"schwidefsky@de.ibm.com" <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
"james.hogan@imgtec.com" <james.hogan@imgtec.com>,
"cmetcalf@tilera.com" <cmetcalf@tilera.com>,
"benh@kernel.crashing.org" <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
"linux@arm.linux.org.uk" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] sched: rework of sched_domain topology definition
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 11:31:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140311103119.GW9987@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtC1_t78hvOw9u-t1BqUZj_dO3WFYp2OjX=RFZP-A7zSbg@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:32:35PM +0800, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Never got the new name DIE for CPU? Might confuse people when they use
> > /proc/sys/kernel/sched_domain/cpuX/domainY/name or sched_domain_debug_one().
>
> In fact, CPU is also confusing because it's used for different things.
> But if it makes things even more confusing, i can come back to CPU
Yeah, not sure DIE is the right thing either; because there's multi-die
packages that get classified under CPU :-)
Take for example the Core 2 Quad, which was 2 dual core dies glued
together in a single package.
There's also the AMD bulldozer which glued two dies into a single
package; but for those its not a problem because each die is a separate
numa node, so there DIE would actually be the correct term and PACKAGE
would be wrong.
So while CPU sucks, I'm not sure we can come up with anything that's
actually correct. That said; we could try for something less wrong than
CPU :-)
I'm not sure there are a lot of people who see/know the names of these
domains to be bothered by a change in them; it might be limited to just
us for all I know.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-11 10:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-05 7:18 [RFC 0/6] rework sched_domain topology description Vincent Guittot
2014-03-05 7:18 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-05 7:18 ` [RFC 1/6] sched: remove unused SCHED_INIT_NODE Vincent Guittot
2014-03-05 7:18 ` [PATCH 2/6] sched: rework of sched_domain topology definition Vincent Guittot
2014-03-05 7:18 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-05 17:09 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-05 17:09 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-06 8:32 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-06 8:32 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-11 10:31 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-03-11 10:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-03-11 13:27 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-11 13:27 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-11 13:48 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-11 13:48 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-05 7:18 ` [RFC 3/6] sched: s390: create a dedicated topology table Vincent Guittot
2014-03-05 7:18 ` [RFC 4/6] sched: powerpc: " Vincent Guittot
2014-03-11 10:08 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-03-11 10:08 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-03-11 13:18 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-11 13:18 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-12 4:42 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-03-12 4:42 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-03-12 7:44 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-12 7:44 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-12 11:04 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-12 11:04 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-14 2:30 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-03-14 2:30 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-03-14 2:14 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-03-14 2:14 ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-03-05 7:18 ` [RFC 5/6] sched: add a new SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN for sched_domain Vincent Guittot
2014-03-05 7:18 ` [RFC 6/6] sched: ARM: create a dedicated scheduler topology table Vincent Guittot
2014-03-05 22:38 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-05 22:38 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-06 8:42 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-06 8:42 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-05 23:17 ` [RFC 0/6] rework sched_domain topology description Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-05 23:17 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-06 9:04 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-06 9:04 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-06 12:31 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-06 12:31 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-07 2:47 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-07 2:47 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-08 12:40 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-08 12:40 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-10 13:21 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-10 13:21 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-11 13:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-03-11 13:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-03-12 13:28 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-12 13:28 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-12 13:47 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-12 13:47 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-13 14:07 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-13 14:07 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-17 11:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-03-17 11:52 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-03-19 19:15 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-19 19:15 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-20 8:28 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-20 8:28 ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-11 13:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-03-11 13:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140311103119.GW9987@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.