linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"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>
Cc: "preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/6] rework sched_domain topology description
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 23:17:38 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5317B092.7070805@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1394003906-11630-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>

On 05/03/14 07:18, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> This patchset was previously part of the larger tasks packing patchset [1].
> I have splitted the latter in 3 different patchsets (at least) to make the
> thing easier.
> -configuration of sched_domain topology (this patchset)
> -update and consolidation of cpu_power
> -tasks packing algorithm
>
> Based on Peter Z's proposal [2][3], this patchset modifies the way to configure
> the sched_domain level in order to let architectures to add specific level like
> the current BOOK level or the proposed power gating level for ARM architecture.
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/10/18/121
> [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/5/239
> [3] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/5/449
>
> Vincent Guittot (6):
>    sched: remove unused SCHED_INIT_NODE
>    sched: rework of sched_domain topology definition
>    sched: s390: create a dedicated topology table
>    sched: powerpc: create a dedicated topology table
>    sched: add a new SD_SHARE_POWERDOMAIN for sched_domain
>    sched: ARM: create a dedicated scheduler topology table
>
>   arch/arm/kernel/topology.c        |   26 ++++
>   arch/ia64/include/asm/topology.h  |   24 ----
>   arch/metag/include/asm/topology.h |   27 -----
>   arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c         |   35 ++++--
>   arch/s390/include/asm/topology.h  |   13 +-
>   arch/s390/kernel/topology.c       |   25 ++++
>   arch/tile/include/asm/topology.h  |   33 ------
>   include/linux/sched.h             |   30 +++++
>   include/linux/topology.h          |  128 ++------------------
>   kernel/sched/core.c               |  235 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
>   10 files changed, 237 insertions(+), 339 deletions(-)
>

Hi Vincent,

I reviewed your patch-set carefully (including test runs on TC2), 
especially due to the fact that we want to build our sd_energy stuff on 
top of it.


One thing I'm still not convinced of is the fact that specifying 
additional sd levels in the struct sched_domain_topology_level table has 
an advantage over a function pointer for sd topology flags similar to 
the one we're already using for the cpu mask in struct 
sched_domain_topology_level.

   int (*sched_domain_flags_f)(int cpu);

This function pointer would be simply another member of struct 
sched_domain_topology_level and would replace int sd_flags.  AFAICS, you 
have to create additional cpu mask functions anyway for the additional 
sd levels, like cpu_corepower_mask() for the  GMC level in the ARM case. 
  There could be a set of standard sd topology flags function for the 
default sd layer and archs which want to pass in something special 
define those function locally since they will use them only in their 
arch specific struct sched_domain_topology_level table anyway.  I know 
that you use the existing sd degenerate functionality for this and that 
the freeing of the redundant data structures (sched_domain, sched_group 
and sched_group_power) is there too but it still doesn't seem to me to 
be the right thing to do.

The problem that we now expose internal data structures (struct sd_data 
and struct sched_domain_topology_level) could be dealt with later.

-- Dietmar


  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-03-05 23:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ 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 ` [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 17:09   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-06  8:32     ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-11 10:31       ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-03-11 13:27         ` Vincent Guittot
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 13:18     ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-12  4:42       ` Preeti U Murthy
2014-03-12  7:44         ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-12 11:04           ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-14  2:30             ` 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
2014-03-06  8:42     ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-05 23:17 ` Dietmar Eggemann [this message]
2014-03-06  9:04   ` [RFC 0/6] rework sched_domain topology description Vincent Guittot
2014-03-06 12:31     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-07  2:47       ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-08 12:40         ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-10 13:21           ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-11 13:17           ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-03-12 13:28             ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-12 13:47               ` Vincent Guittot
2014-03-13 14:07                 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-17 11:52               ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-03-19 19:15                 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2014-03-20  8:28                   ` Vincent Guittot
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=5317B092.7070805@arm.com \
    --to=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=cmetcalf@tilera.com \
    --cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
    --cc=james.hogan@imgtec.com \
    --cc=linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).