All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
To: Beata Michalska <beata.michalska@arm.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
	mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, corbet@lwn.net,
	rdunlap@infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] sched/topology: Rework CPU capacity asymmetry detection
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 20:17:25 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1cae4fcc-d276-f66d-c094-35571233d923@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210526121546.GA13262@e120325.cambridge.arm.com>

On 26/05/2021 14:15, Beata Michalska wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 11:52:25AM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> On 25/05/2021 12:29, Beata Michalska wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:53:07AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>>> On 24/05/21 23:55, Beata Michalska wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 07:01:04PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/05/21 11:16, Beata Michalska wrote:

[...]

>> static inline int
>> asym_cpu_capacity_classify(struct sched_domain *sd, 
>>                            const struct cpumask *cpu_map)
>> {
>>         int sd_span_match = 0, cpu_map_match = 0, flags = 0; 
>>         struct asym_cap_data *entry;
>>
>>         list_for_each_entry(entry, &asym_cap_list, link) {
>>                 if (cpumask_intersects(sched_domain_span(sd), entry->cpu_mask))
>>                         ++sd_span_match;
>>                 else if (cpumask_intersects(cpu_map, entry->cpu_mask))
>>                         ++cpu_map_match;
>>         }
>>
>>         WARN_ON_ONCE(!sd_span_match);
>>
>>         if (sd_span_match > 1) { 
>>                 flags |= SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY;
>>                 if (!cpu_map_match)
>>                         flags |= SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL;
>>         }
>>
>>         return flags;
>> }
> So I planned to drop the list_is_singular check as it is needless really.
> Otherwise, I am not really convinced by the suggestion. I could add comments
> around current version to make it more ..... 'digestible' but I'd rather
> stay with it as it seems more compact to me (subjective).

You could pass in `const struct cpumask *sd_span` instead of `struct
sched_domain *sd` though. To make it clear that both masks are used to
compare against the cpumasks of the asym_cap_list entries.

 static inline int
-asym_cpu_capacity_classify(struct sched_domain *sd,
+asym_cpu_capacity_classify(const struct cpumask *sd_span,
 			   const struct cpumask *cpu_map)
 {
 	int sd_asym_flags = SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY | SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL;
@@ -1377,14 +1378,14 @@ asym_cpu_capacity_classify(struct sched_domain *sd,
 		goto leave;
 
 	list_for_each_entry(entry, &asym_cap_list, link) {
-		if (cpumask_intersects(sched_domain_span(sd), entry->cpu_mask)) {
+		if (cpumask_intersects(sd_span, entry->cpu_mask)) {
 			++asym_cap_count;
 		} else {
 			/*
 			 * CPUs with given capacity might be offline
 			 * so make sure this is not the case
 			 */
-			if (cpumask_intersects(entry->cpu_mask, cpu_map)) {
+			if (cpumask_intersects(cpu_map, entry->cpu_mask)) {
 				sd_asym_flags &= ~SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL;
 				if (asym_cap_count > 1)
 					break;
@@ -1395,7 +1396,6 @@ asym_cpu_capacity_classify(struct sched_domain *sd,
 leave:
 	return asym_cap_count > 1 ? sd_asym_flags : 0;
 }
-#endif
 
 static inline struct asym_cap_data *
 asym_cpu_capacity_get_data(unsigned long capacity)
@@ -1589,6 +1589,7 @@ sd_init(struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl,
 	struct sd_data *sdd = &tl->data;
 	struct sched_domain *sd = *per_cpu_ptr(sdd->sd, cpu);
 	int sd_id, sd_weight, sd_flags = 0;
+	struct cpumask *sd_span;
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
 	/*
@@ -1636,10 +1637,11 @@ sd_init(struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl,
 #endif
 	};
 
-	cpumask_and(sched_domain_span(sd), cpu_map, tl->mask(cpu));
-	sd_id = cpumask_first(sched_domain_span(sd));
+	sd_span = sched_domain_span(sd);
+	cpumask_and(sd_span, cpu_map, tl->mask(cpu));
+	sd_id = cpumask_first(sd_span);
 
-	sd->flags |= asym_cpu_capacity_classify(sd, cpu_map);
+	sd->flags |= asym_cpu_capacity_classify(sd_span, cpu_map);
 	/*
 	 * Convert topological properties into behaviour.
 	 */

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-05-26 18:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-24 10:16 [PATCH v5 0/3] Rework CPU capacity asymmetry detection Beata Michalska
2021-05-24 10:16 ` [PATCH v5 1/3] sched/core: Introduce SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL sched_domain flag Beata Michalska
2021-05-24 10:16 ` [PATCH v5 2/3] sched/topology: Rework CPU capacity asymmetry detection Beata Michalska
2021-05-24 18:01   ` Valentin Schneider
2021-05-24 22:55     ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-24 23:19       ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-25  9:53       ` Valentin Schneider
2021-05-25 10:29         ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-26  9:52           ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-26 12:15             ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-26 12:51               ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-26 18:17                 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-26 21:40                   ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-27 15:08                     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-27 17:07                       ` Beata Michalska
2021-06-02 17:17                         ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-06-02 19:48                           ` Beata Michalska
2021-06-03  9:09                             ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-06-03  9:24                               ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-26 18:17               ` Dietmar Eggemann [this message]
2021-05-26 21:43                 ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-27  7:03             ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-27 12:22               ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-27 12:32                 ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-25  8:25   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-25  9:30     ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-25 11:59       ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-05-25 14:04         ` Beata Michalska
2021-05-24 10:16 ` [PATCH v5 3/3] sched/doc: Update the CPU capacity asymmetry bits Beata Michalska

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1cae4fcc-d276-f66d-c094-35571233d923@arm.com \
    --to=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=beata.michalska@arm.com \
    --cc=corbet@lwn.net \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.