Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:31:18 +0530 | From | Gautham R Shenoy <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 9/15] sched: Check sched_mn_power_savings when setting flags for CPU and MN domains |
| |
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 03:40:13PM +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote: > > Use new function sd_balance_for_mn_power() and adapt > sd_balance_for_package_power() and sd_power_saving_flags() for correct > setting of flags SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE and SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE in CPU > and MN domains. > > Furthermore add flag SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES to MN domain. > Rational: a multi-node processor most likely shares package resources > (on Magny-Cours the package constitues a "voltage domain"). > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com> > --- > arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h | 3 ++- > include/linux/sched.h | 14 ++++++++++++-- > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h > index 6d7d133..4a520b8 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h > @@ -198,7 +198,8 @@ static inline void setup_node_to_cpumask_map(void) { } > | SD_BALANCE_EXEC \ > | SD_WAKE_AFFINE \ > | SD_WAKE_BALANCE \ > - | sd_balance_for_package_power()\ > + | SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES\ > + | sd_balance_for_mn_power()\ > | sd_power_saving_flags(),\ > .last_balance = jiffies, \ > .balance_interval = 1, \ > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h > index 5755643..c53bdd8 100644 > --- a/include/linux/sched.h > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h > @@ -844,9 +844,18 @@ static inline int sd_balance_for_mc_power(void) > return 0; > } > > +static inline int sd_balance_for_mn_power(void) > +{ > + if (sched_mc_power_savings || sched_smt_power_savings) > + return SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE; > + > + return 0;
This again implies that if SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE is set at any level, it must also be set at it's parent.
With this constraint, there can only be 4 combinations. 0) SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE not set. 1) SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE set at SD_LV_CPU. 2) SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE set at SD_LV_MN and SD_LV_CPU 3) SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE set at SD_LV_MC, SD_LV_MN and SD_LV_CPU.
If we could independently decide the aggressiveness of consolidation (i.e, 1 or 2), We can do away with these multiple sysfs variables have have a single tunable.
Does this make sense ?
> + > static inline int sd_balance_for_package_power(void) > { > - if (sched_mc_power_savings | sched_smt_power_savings) > + if (sched_mn_power_savings || sched_mc_power_savings || > + sched_smt_power_savings) > return SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE; > > return 0; > @@ -860,7 +869,8 @@ static inline int sd_balance_for_package_power(void) > > static inline int sd_power_saving_flags(void) > { > - if (sched_mc_power_savings | sched_smt_power_savings) > + if (sched_mn_power_savings || sched_mc_power_savings || > + sched_smt_power_savings) > return SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE; > > return 0; > -- > 1.6.0.4 > > > > -- > 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/ >
-- Thanks and Regards gautham
| |