lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 15/15] x86: Fix cpu_coregroup_mask to return correct cpumask on multi-node processors

    * Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com> wrote:

    > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:55:43AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > > On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 11:31 +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
    > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 05:36:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > > > > On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 15:46 +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
    > > > > > The correct mask that describes core-siblings of an processor
    > > > > > is topology_core_cpumask. See topology adapation patches, especially
    > > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124964999608179
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > argh, violence, murder kill.. this is the worst possible hack and you're
    > > > > extending it :/
    > > >
    > > > So this is the third code area
    > > > (besides sched_*_power_savings sysfs interface, and the __cpu_power fiddling)
    > > > that is crap, mess, a hack.
    > > >
    > > > Didn't know that I'd enter such a minefield when touching this code. ;-(
    > >
    > > Yeah, you're lucky that way ;-) Its been creaking for a while, and I've
    > > been making noises to the IBM people (who so far have been the main
    > > source of power saving patches) to clean this up, but now you trod onto
    > > all of it at once..
    > >
    > > > What would be your perferred solution for the
    > > > core_cpumask/llc_shared_map stuff? Another domain level to get rid of
    > > > this function?
    > >
    > > Right, I'd like to see everything exposed as domain levels.
    > >
    > >
    > > numa-cluster
    > > numa
    > > socket
    > > in-socket-numa
    > > multi-core
    > > shared-cache
    > > core
    > > threads
    > >
    > > We currently have a fixed order of these things, but I think we should
    > > simply provide helpers for building the sd tree and let the arch code do
    > > that instead of exporting all these masks in a fixed order.
    > >
    > > Once we get the arch domain tree, we do degenerate stuff to cull all the
    > > trivial domains and fold SD flags.
    >
    > So any in-socket-numa is only going to haeppen with the
    > arch-defined domain tree.
    >
    > Now that this is settled you should throw away the
    > __build_sched_domains cleanup patches that are in tip. They won't
    > be of use when domain creation code is basically changed.

    I'd rather keep them - it gives a better/cleaner basis to develop
    the new stuff.

    Ingo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-08-25 12:31    [W:0.024 / U:60.928 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site