From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E574C4332D for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 22:46:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C573206D7 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 22:46:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="K35Xul1B" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727579AbgCSWqA (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2020 18:46:00 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f194.google.com ([209.85.160.194]:34158 "EHLO mail-qt1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726930AbgCSWp7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Mar 2020 18:45:59 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f194.google.com with SMTP id 10so3436593qtp.1 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 15:45:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hg6/XErwieCbKEfwaK23H7KvFdhoOokx+O1ndfHjdpU=; b=K35Xul1BPwATBVYVGK1BzNwg1AfbzIoEMcMIYFIqZpTfU1JbG3He3l99NhGYwgWPbs u+xfPnUrH81APCqnVXY50nhKQe+ibkMS6ecDck1xrFL/vkqdoUZAXjGM5K5s03HW0Aoa AV5WoC6OrOCmXVwZewxhhuhbjcgCsDJIrX+EQ2xk5snNqTolW+uP+GRkYkobmARhQsUa MX6rxQVC9wEFCyXiEKPNjK2a/ofXMo0ny2KPnalzfVm81aV/W8CND2olyxDgGBeJd/jw dD3iSNij3AxA+/LNEFdtOU91evmTLVH+cdGxvLXoCkeAy4wDv4TFfwKjhecSF6aMb0Wb kvJg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hg6/XErwieCbKEfwaK23H7KvFdhoOokx+O1ndfHjdpU=; b=RoPBqqobYWbjbsavaLj//dda5dY3Env5JXYjz+UBjzxIR8KTIOOVejk2foMGdM3NfB dDDpnpHwWK+blBSJRHsLA6bgP+8aanlZi1fUjiUbWE7adSb52D67/IKaKoO8bFH7LLIe KlmA49vQM4KFzDWHVG3RFfba8VzhlxbwB1fbPLrambnYXts+e0GmcO2dbstU60DHT3oP BRj/jG/twoh9bJJ2plhcsNwPkG0MGZKaFq1L+Qncpmtr19YraLTC2LJADOQEDpuiJWVr IbY4o6lHoA8YJfL2TM/RqTlIHbapcsa8Uv7YCpTVSQ39o8iWd4QibvfwauYqzLe1gvgc GMzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1Binp19lGmVdfqFC3UAk9UtjMQGmaEypzulnalOYLKtjmPJfTU RLUM3IVn53IuafzN5pTX5RN4SBRaDGDI3KCwb4OWgg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vuXEDkZdqwcA6ixqZ1MJr03UDx5UVIrRa+dLF75K2KQgFf3jrcjivNnTNOHve786HRh0iyHi2Aa1IvSOWXmc3U= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:47cc:: with SMTP id d12mr5510636qtr.234.1584657958214; Thu, 19 Mar 2020 15:45:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200311010113.136465-1-joshdon@google.com> <20200311140533.pclgecwhbpqzyrks@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20200317192401.GE20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200318113456.3h64jpyb6xiczhcj@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> In-Reply-To: <20200318113456.3h64jpyb6xiczhcj@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> From: Josh Don Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 15:45:47 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/cpuset: distribute tasks within affinity masks To: Qais Yousef , Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Li Zefan , Tejun Heo , Johannes Weiner , Dietmar Eggemann , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , Mel Gorman , linux-kernel , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, Paul Turner Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 4:35 AM Qais Yousef wrote: > > On 03/17/20 14:35, Josh Don wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:05 AM Qais Yousef wrote: > > > > > > It might be a good idea to split the API from the user too. > > > > Not sure what you mean by this, could you clarify? > > I meant it'd be a good idea to split the cpumask API into its own patch and > have a separate patch for the user in sched/core.c. But that was a small nit. > If the user (in sched/core.c) somehow introduces a regression, reverting it > separately should be trivial. > > Thanks Ah, yes I agree that sounds like a good idea, I can do that. Peter, any other nit before I re-send? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Don Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/cpuset: distribute tasks within affinity masks Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 15:45:47 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20200311010113.136465-1-joshdon@google.com> <20200311140533.pclgecwhbpqzyrks@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20200317192401.GE20713@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200318113456.3h64jpyb6xiczhcj@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hg6/XErwieCbKEfwaK23H7KvFdhoOokx+O1ndfHjdpU=; b=K35Xul1BPwATBVYVGK1BzNwg1AfbzIoEMcMIYFIqZpTfU1JbG3He3l99NhGYwgWPbs u+xfPnUrH81APCqnVXY50nhKQe+ibkMS6ecDck1xrFL/vkqdoUZAXjGM5K5s03HW0Aoa AV5WoC6OrOCmXVwZewxhhuhbjcgCsDJIrX+EQ2xk5snNqTolW+uP+GRkYkobmARhQsUa MX6rxQVC9wEFCyXiEKPNjK2a/ofXMo0ny2KPnalzfVm81aV/W8CND2olyxDgGBeJd/jw dD3iSNij3AxA+/LNEFdtOU91evmTLVH+cdGxvLXoCkeAy4wDv4TFfwKjhecSF6aMb0Wb kvJg== In-Reply-To: <20200318113456.3h64jpyb6xiczhcj-AIE2tiYzwxrZROr8t4l/smS4ubULX0JqMm0uRHvK7Nw@public.gmane.org> Sender: cgroups-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Qais Yousef , Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Li Zefan , Tejun Heo , Johannes Weiner , Dietmar Eggemann , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , Mel Gorman , linux-kernel , cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Paul Turner On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 4:35 AM Qais Yousef wrote: > > On 03/17/20 14:35, Josh Don wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 7:05 AM Qais Yousef wrote: > > > > > > It might be a good idea to split the API from the user too. > > > > Not sure what you mean by this, could you clarify? > > I meant it'd be a good idea to split the cpumask API into its own patch and > have a separate patch for the user in sched/core.c. But that was a small nit. > If the user (in sched/core.c) somehow introduces a regression, reverting it > separately should be trivial. > > Thanks Ah, yes I agree that sounds like a good idea, I can do that. Peter, any other nit before I re-send?