From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
ndesaulniers@google.com, Nathan Lynch <nathanl@linux.ibm.com>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/smp: Dynamically build powerpc topology
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 00:10:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230904221004.GB2568@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230830122614.73067-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 05:56:14PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> Currently there are four powerpc specific sched topologies. These are
> all statically defined. However not all these topologies are used by
> all powerpc systems.
>
> To avoid unnecessary degenerations by the scheduler , masks and flags
> are compared. However if the sched topologies are build dynamically then
> the code is simpler and there are greater chances of avoiding
> degenerations.
>
> Even x86 builds its sched topologies dynamically and new changes are
> very similar to the way x86 is building its topologies.
You're not stating it explicitly, but you're doing this as a performance
optimization, right? The x86 thing didn't particularly care about
avoiding degenerate topologies -- it's just that the fixed tables method
grew unwieldy due to combinatorics.
And how does this patch relate to the other series touching this?
powerpc/smp: Shared processor sched optimizations
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-09-04 22:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-30 12:26 [PATCH] powerpc/smp: Dynamically build powerpc topology Srikar Dronamraju
2023-09-04 22:10 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-09-05 5:37 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2023-10-20 12:10 ` Michael Ellerman
2023-10-20 13:21 ` Srikar Dronamraju
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=20230904221004.GB2568@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=jpoimboe@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=nathanl@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=ndesaulniers@google.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.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