From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Andrea Righi <arighi@nvidia.com>
Cc: David Vernet <void@manifault.com>,
Changwoo Min <changwoo@igalia.com>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] sched_ext: idle: Introduce the concept of allowed CPUs
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 06:07:21 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z88OOena_fucXLVl@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z822PGZLYl1Vima4@gpd3>
Hello,
On Sun, Mar 09, 2025 at 04:39:40PM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > Would just using a pre-allocated cpumask to do pre-and on @cpus_allowed
> > work? This won't only be used for topology support (e.g. soft partitioning
> > in scx_layered and scx_mitosis may want to use multi-topology-unit spanning
> > subsets) and I'm not sure assuming and optimizing for that is a good idea
> > for generic API.
>
> We can pre-allocate two additional (per-cpu) cpumasks to do:
> - cpumask_and(numa_cpus, numa_span(cpu), cpus_allowed)
> - cpumask_and(llc_cpus, llc_span(cpu), cpus_allowed)
>
> And update/use them only when it's needed. In this way the API would be
> generic without making any implicit assumption about @cpus_allowed.
I'm not quite following why two masks would be necessary. The user is
providing two masks and and'ing those two masks result in a single
cpus_allowed mask which can then be passed down to the existing pick
functions, no?
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-10 16:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-07 20:01 [PATCHSET v2 sched_ext/for-6.15] sched_ext: Enhance built-in idle selection with allowed CPUs Andrea Righi
2025-03-07 20:01 ` [PATCH 1/6] sched_ext: idle: Honor idle flags in the built-in idle selection policy Andrea Righi
2025-03-07 20:01 ` [PATCH 2/6] sched_ext: idle: Refactor scx_select_cpu_dfl() Andrea Righi
2025-03-07 20:01 ` [PATCH 3/6] sched_ext: idle: Introduce the concept of allowed CPUs Andrea Righi
2025-03-07 22:17 ` Tejun Heo
2025-03-08 6:48 ` Andrea Righi
2025-03-09 14:56 ` Tejun Heo
2025-03-09 15:39 ` Andrea Righi
2025-03-10 16:07 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2025-03-10 17:15 ` Andrea Righi
2025-03-07 20:01 ` [PATCH 4/6] sched_ext: idle: Introduce scx_bpf_select_cpu_and() Andrea Righi
2025-03-07 20:01 ` [PATCH 5/6] selftests/sched_ext: Add test for scx_bpf_select_cpu_and() Andrea Righi
2025-03-07 20:01 ` [PATCH 6/6] sched_ext: idle: Deprecate scx_bpf_select_cpu_dfl() Andrea Righi
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=Z88OOena_fucXLVl@slm.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=arighi@nvidia.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=changwoo@igalia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=void@manifault.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