From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67741C433DF for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:47:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ABAB20771 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 18:47:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726118AbgGBSrB (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jul 2020 14:47:01 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:53146 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726029AbgGBSrB (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jul 2020 14:47:01 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F26411FB; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 11:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e113632-lin (e113632-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.194.46]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 19B2D3F71E; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 11:46:59 -0700 (PDT) References: <20200701190656.10126-1-valentin.schneider@arm.com> <20200701190656.10126-7-valentin.schneider@arm.com> User-agent: mu4e 0.9.17; emacs 26.3 From: Valentin Schneider To: Dietmar Eggemann Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , mingo@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] sched/topology: Introduce SD metaflag for flags needing > 1 groups In-reply-to: Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 19:46:57 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/07/20 19:29, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 01/07/2020 21:06, Valentin Schneider wrote: > > [...] > >> @@ -105,16 +122,18 @@ SD_FLAG(SD_SERIALIZE, 8, SDF_SHARED_PARENT) >> * Place busy tasks earlier in the domain >> * >> * SHARED_CHILD: Usually set on the SMT level. Technically could be set further >> - * up, but currently assumed to be set from the base domain upwards (see >> - * update_top_cache_domain()). >> + * up, but currently assumed to be set from the base domain >> + * upwards (see update_top_cache_domain()). >> */ >> -SD_FLAG(SD_ASYM_PACKING, 9, SDF_SHARED_CHILD) >> +SD_FLAG(SD_ASYM_PACKING, 9, SDF_SHARED_CHILD | SDF_NEEDS_GROUPS) >> >> /* >> * Prefer to place tasks in a sibling domain >> * >> * Set up until domains start spanning NUMA nodes. Close to being a SHARED_CHILD >> * flag, but cleared below domains with SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY. >> + * >> + * NEEDS_GROUPS: Load balancing flag. >> */ >> SD_FLAG(SD_PREFER_SIBLING, 10, 0) > > Related to my comment in [PATCH v3 5/7], maybe you wanted to add > SDF_NEEDS_GROUPS for SD_PREFER_SIBLING as well ? This comment > 'NEEDS_GROUPS: Load balancing flag.' makes me wondering. > > Currently, SD_PREFER_SIBLING isn't in SD_DEGENERATE_GROUPS_MASK=0xaef. > You're right, that's a fail from my end. Thanks (and sorry)! > [...]