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: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
	mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, valentin.schneider@arm.com,
	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: Tue, 25 May 2021 13:59:30 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8f00a2d4-2443-9656-2d51-6c5798fda552@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210525093039.GA31871@e120325.cambridge.arm.com>

On 25/05/2021 11:30, Beata Michalska wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:25:36AM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> On 24/05/2021 12:16, Beata Michalska wrote:

[...]

>>> @@ -1266,6 +1266,112 @@ static void init_sched_groups_capacity(int cpu, struct sched_domain *sd)
>>>  	update_group_capacity(sd, cpu);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +/**
>>> + * Asymmetric CPU capacity bits
>>> + */
>>> +struct asym_cap_data {
>>> +	struct list_head link;
>>> +	unsigned long    capacity;
>>> +	struct cpumask   *cpu_mask;
>>
>> Not sure if this has been discussed already but shouldn't the flexible
>> array members` approach known from struct sched_group, struct
>> sched_domain or struct em_perf_domain be used here?
>> IIRC the last time this has been discussed in this thread:
>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200910054203.525420-2-aubrey.li@intel.com
>>
> If I got right the discussion you have pointed to, it was about using
> cpumask_var_t which is not the case here. I do not mind moving the code
> to use the array but I am not sure if this changes much. Looking at the
> code changes to support that (to_cpumask namely) it was introduced for
> cases where cpumask_var_t was not appropriate, which again isn't the case
> here.

Yeah, it was more about using `flexible array members` or allocating the
cpumask separately.

Looks like you're using some kind of a mixed approach:

(1) struct asym_cap_data {
        ...
        struct cpumask *cpu_mask;

(2) entry = kzalloc(sizeof(*entry) + cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL);

(3) entry->cpu_mask = (struct cpumask *)((char *)entry +
                      sizeof(*entry));

(4) cpumask_intersects(foo, entry->cpu_mask)


E.g. struct em_perf_domain has

(1)  struct em_perf_domain {
         ...
         unsigned long cpus[];

(2) like yours

(3) is not needed.

(4) cpumask_copy(em_span_cpus(pd), foo)

    with #define em_span_cpus(em) (to_cpumask((em)->cpus))

IMHO, it's better to keep this approach aligned between the different
data structures.

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-25 11:59 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
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 [this message]
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=8f00a2d4-2443-9656-2d51-6c5798fda552@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.