Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Oct 2018 10:45:47 +0100 | From | Quentin Perret <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 08/14] sched/topology: Disable EAS on inappropriate platforms |
| |
On Thursday 04 Oct 2018 at 11:38:48 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 10:10:48AM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote: > > On Wednesday 03 Oct 2018 at 18:27:19 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:13:03AM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote: > > > > @@ -288,6 +321,21 @@ static void build_perf_domains(const struct cpumask *cpu_map) > > > > goto free; > > > > tmp->next = pd; > > > > pd = tmp; > > > > + > > > > + /* > > > > + * Count performance domains and capacity states for the > > > > + * complexity check. > > > > + */ > > > > + nr_pd++; > > > > + nr_cs += em_pd_nr_cap_states(pd->obj); > > > > + } > > > > + > > > > + /* Bail out if the Energy Model complexity is too high. */ > > > > + if (nr_pd * (nr_cs + nr_cpus) > EM_MAX_COMPLEXITY) { > > > > + if (sched_debug()) > > > > + pr_info("rd %*pbl: EM complexity is too high\n ", > > > > + cpumask_pr_args(cpu_map)); > > > > + goto free; > > > > } > > > > > > I would make than an unconditional WARN, we do not really expect that to > > > trigger, but then it does, we really don't want to hide it. > > > > OTOH that also means that some people with big asymmetric machines can > > get a WARN message every time they boot, and even if they don't want to > > use EAS. > > > > Now, that shouldn't happen any time soon, so it's maybe a good thing if > > we get reports when/if people start to hit that one, so why not ... > > Right, and if becomes a real problem we can think of a solution (like > maybe a DT thingy that says to not use EAS, or a 'better' EAS > algorithm).
That works for me. I'll switch to a plain WARN in v8.
Thanks, Quentin
| |