Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 Oct 2016 12:49:36 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 5/9] x86/sysctl: Add sysctl for ITMT scheduling feature |
| |
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Tim Chen wrote: > +static int sched_itmt_update_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write, > + void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
Please align the arguments proper
static int sched_itmt_update_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write, void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
> +{ > + int ret; > + unsigned int old_sysctl;
unsigned int old_sysctl; int ret;
Please. It's way simpler to read.
> -void sched_set_itmt_support(void) > +int sched_set_itmt_support(void) > { > mutex_lock(&itmt_update_mutex); > > + if (sched_itmt_capable) { > + mutex_unlock(&itmt_update_mutex); > + return 0; > + } > + > + itmt_sysctl_header = register_sysctl_table(itmt_root_table); > + if (!itmt_sysctl_header) { > + mutex_unlock(&itmt_update_mutex); > + return -ENOMEM; > + } > + > sched_itmt_capable = true; > > + /* > + * ITMT capability automatically enables ITMT > + * scheduling for small systems (single node). > + */ > + if (topology_num_packages() == 1) > + sysctl_sched_itmt_enabled = 1;
I really hate this. This is policy and the kernel should not impose policy. Why would I like to have this enforced on my single socket XEON server?
> + if (sysctl_sched_itmt_enabled) {
Why would sysctl_sched_itmt_enabled be true at this point, aside of the above policy imposement?
Thanks,
tglx
| |