From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750877AbWJZADv (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:03:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964838AbWJZADv (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:03:51 -0400 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.89]:14455 "EHLO fmsmga101.fm.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750877AbWJZADu (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:03:50 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,358,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="152098492:sNHT96256167" Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:42:53 -0700 From: "Siddha, Suresh B" To: Russ Anderson Cc: "Luck, Tony" , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] Mixed Madison and Montecito system support Message-ID: <20061025164253.A21790@unix-os.sc.intel.com> References: <20061023205643.GA13990@intel.com> <200610250056.k9P0ujPY21429663@clink.americas.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200610250056.k9P0ujPY21429663@clink.americas.sgi.com>; from rja@sgi.com on Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 07:56:45PM -0500 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 07:56:45PM -0500, Russ Anderson wrote: > Tony Luck wrote: > > > > Cc: linux-kernel for generic bit of this change. Rest of patch was > > posted to linux-ia64: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ia64&m=116070997529216&w=2 > > > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 10:25:58PM -0500, Russ Anderson wrote: > > > int sched_create_sysfs_power_savings_entries(struct sysdev_class *cls) > > > { > > > - int err = 0; > > > + int err = 0, c; > > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT > > > - if (smt_capable()) > > > - err = sysfs_create_file(&cls->kset.kobj, > > > + for_each_online_cpu(c) > > > + if (smt_capable(c)) { > > > + err = sysfs_create_file(&cls->kset.kobj, > > > &attr_sched_smt_power_savings.attr); > > > + break; > > > + } > > > #endif > > > > What if you booted an all-Madison system, and then hot-plugged some > > Montecitos later? Either we'd need the hotplug cpu code to run through > > this routine again to re-test whether any cpu has multi-thread support > > (it doesn't look like it does that now). > > > > Or perhaps it would be simpler to dispense with this test and always > > call sysfs_create_file() here (still inside CONFIG_SCHED_SMT) so that > > the hook is always present to tune the scheduler (even if it may be > > ineffective on a no-smt system)? > > I like that idea. Any objections or comments? I added it so that these entries will not confuse users of a non-smt/mc systems. But mixed type of processors and cpu hotplug really complicates the things.. May be a check of something like "is this platform capable of supporting any multi-core/multi-threaded processor package?" helps.. As there is no well defined mechanism to find out that and for simplicity reasons, we should probably go with Tony's suggestion. Russ I can post a patch, removing both smt_capable() and mc_capable() checks. Today this sysfs variable is not documented. But when it happens, we need to clearly document that these variables have no meaning when the system doesn't have cpus with threads/cores. thanks, suresh