From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
To: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com,
bsegall@google.com, pjt@google.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/11] sched: Remove SD_WAKE_AFFINE flag and replace it with SD_BALANCE_WAKE
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 14:04:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160623130433.GF8415@codeblueprint.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1466041775-4528-9-git-send-email-yuyang.du@intel.com>
On Thu, 16 Jun, at 09:49:32AM, Yuyang Du wrote:
> SD_BALANCE_{FORK|EXEC|WAKE} flags are for select_task_rq() to select a
> CPU to run a new task or a waking task. SD_WAKE_AFFINE is a flag to
> try selecting the waker CPU to run the waking task.
>
> SD_BALANCE_WAKE is not a sched_domain flag, but SD_WAKE_AFFINE is.
> Conceptually, SD_BALANCE_WAKE should be a sched_domain flag just like
> the other two, so we first make SD_BALANCE_WAKE a sched_domain flag.
>
> Moreover, the semantic of SD_WAKE_AFFINE is included in the semantic
> of SD_BALANCE_WAKE. When in wakeup balancing, it is natual to try
> the waker CPU if the waker CPU is allowed, in that sense, we don't
> need a separate flag to specify it, not mentioning that SD_WAKE_AFFINE
> is almost enabled in every sched_domains.
>
> With the above combined, there is no need to have SD_WAKE_AFFINE, so
> we remove and replace it with SD_BALANCE_WAKE. This can be accomplished
> without any functionality change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>
> ---
> include/linux/sched.h | 1 -
> kernel/sched/core.c | 7 +++----
> kernel/sched/deadline.c | 2 +-
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 9 ++++-----
> kernel/sched/rt.c | 2 +-
> 5 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index d74e757..0803abd 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -1014,7 +1014,6 @@ extern void wake_up_q(struct wake_q_head *head);
> #define SD_BALANCE_EXEC 0x0004 /* Balance on exec */
> #define SD_BALANCE_FORK 0x0008 /* Balance on fork, clone */
> #define SD_BALANCE_WAKE 0x0010 /* Balance on wakeup */
> -#define SD_WAKE_AFFINE 0x0020 /* Wake task to waking CPU */
> #define SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY 0x0080 /* Domain members share cpu power */
> #define SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN 0x0100 /* Domain members share power domain */
> #define SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES 0x0200 /* Domain members share cpu pkg resources */
I'm curious - doesn't this break userspace ABI? These flags are
exported via procfs, so I would have assumed removing or changing the
value of any of these constants would be forbidden.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-23 13:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-16 1:49 [RFC PATCH 00/11] Refactor select_task_rq_fair() Yuyang Du
2016-06-16 1:49 ` [RFC PATCH 01/11] sched: Remove unused @cpu argument from destroy_sched_domain*() Yuyang Du
2016-06-16 1:49 ` [RFC PATCH 02/11] sched: Restructure destroy_sched_domain() Yuyang Du
2016-06-16 1:49 ` [RFC PATCH 03/11] sched: Introduce struct sched_domain_shared Yuyang Du
2016-06-16 1:49 ` [RFC PATCH 04/11] sched: Replace sd_busy/nr_busy_cpus with sched_domain_shared Yuyang Du
2016-06-16 1:49 ` [RFC PATCH 05/11] sched: Rewrite select_idle_siblings() Yuyang Du
2016-06-16 1:49 ` [RFC PATCH 06/11] sched: Optimize SCHED_SMT Yuyang Du
2016-06-16 1:49 ` [RFC PATCH 07/11] sched: Clean up SD_BALANCE_WAKE flags in sched domain build-up Yuyang Du
2016-06-16 1:49 ` [RFC PATCH 08/11] sched: Remove SD_WAKE_AFFINE flag and replace it with SD_BALANCE_WAKE Yuyang Du
2016-06-23 13:04 ` Matt Fleming [this message]
2016-06-23 13:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-06-23 14:06 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-06-16 1:49 ` [RFC PATCH 09/11] sched: Add per CPU variable sd_socket_id to specify the CPU's socket Yuyang Du
2016-06-16 1:49 ` [RFC PATCH 10/11] sched: Add sched_llc_complete static key to specify whether the LLC covers all CPUs Yuyang Du
2016-06-16 1:49 ` [RFC PATCH 11/11] sched/fair: Refactor select_task_rq_fair() Yuyang Du
2016-06-16 1:57 ` Yuyang Du
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=20160623130433.GF8415@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--to=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=yuyang.du@intel.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox