lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 23:04:14 +0900
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:32:44AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:17:36 +0900
> > Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Yes, that's what I intended. IOW:
> > >
> > > If (we found a proper sd, not having SD_PREFER_SIBLING?)
> > > use the sd;
> > > else if (we found a proper sd, having SD_PREFER_SIBLING?)
> > > use the smallest sd among SD_PREFER_SIBLING sds;
> >
> > BTW, what do you mean by "smallest sd"?
>
> There might be more than one SD_PREFER_SIBLING domain in its hierachy.
> In that case, we have to choose one of them. Imagine the following
> example, in case that the source cpu is cpu 0:
>
> [Domain hierachy for cpu 0]
>
> cpu 0 -+ domain 1 -+
> | SD_PREFER_SIBLING flaged |
> cpu 1 -+ +- domain 2
> | SD_PREFER_SIBLING flaged
> cpu 2 -+---------------------------+
> |
> cpu 3 -+
>
> In this case, we have to choose domain 1 than 2, because cpus in domain 1
> are closer to the source cpu, cpu 0. That's what I meant.

Then you mean "closest sd", at least that makes more sense in the
context.

-- Steve

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-16 16:26    [W:0.054 / U:4.440 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site