Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:48:20 -0800 | From | "Siddha, Suresh B" <> | Subject | Re: [Patch] sched: new sched domain for representing multi-core |
| |
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:12:16PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > It's still not clear what's supposed to be happening here. > > In build_sched_domains() we still have code which does: > > > for_each_cpu_mask(...) { > ... > #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_MC > ... > #endif > #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT > ... > #endif > ... > } > ... > #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT > ... > #endif > ... > #ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_MC > ... > #endif > > So in the first case the SCHED_SMT code will win and in the second case the > SCHED_MC code will win. I think.
I am not sure what you mean here. At all the above pointed places, both MC and SMT will win if both are configured.
> The code is so repetitive in there that > `patch' may have put the hunks in the wrong place.
I will check your -mm tree.
> > What is the design intention here? What do we _want_ to happen if both MC > and SMT are enabled?
If both MC and SMT are enabled(and available on the system), then there will be two domain levels one for MC and another one for SMT.
> Also the path tests CONFIG_SCHED_MT in a few places where it meant to use > CONFIG_SCHED_SMT, which rather casts doubt upon the testing quality.
:( Got introduced in my last version of the patch. Thanks for fixing it.
suresh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |