From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S933887AbbIVQW7 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:22:59 -0400
Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:29856 "EHLO SMTP.CITRIX.COM"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S933729AbbIVQW5 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:22:57 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,573,1437436800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="301621486"
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] xen: if on Xen, "flatten" the scheduling
 domain hierarchy
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
References: <1439913332.4239.134.camel@citrix.com> <55D61964.90608@suse.com>
 <1442335855.7789.45.camel@citrix.com> <55FF9A50.9040505@suse.com>
 <5600DC4B.1000509@suse.com>
CC: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
        "Andrew Cooper" <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
        "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "David Vrabel" <david.vrabel@citrix.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>
Message-ID: <56018050.1010009@citrix.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 17:22:40 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5600DC4B.1000509@suse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-DLP: MIA2
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 09/22/2015 05:42 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> One other thing I just discovered: there are other consumers of the
> topology sibling masks (e.g. topology_sibling_cpumask()) as well.
> 
> I think we would want to avoid any optimizations based on those in
> drivers as well, not only in the scheduler.

I'm beginning to lose the thread of the discussion here a bit.

Juergen / Dario, could one of you summarize your two approaches, and the
(alleged) advantages and disadvantages of each one?

Thanks,
 -George