From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755741AbcILUuV (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2016 16:50:21 -0400 Received: from mga07.intel.com ([134.134.136.100]:13801 "EHLO mga07.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755469AbcILUuR (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Sep 2016 16:50:17 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,324,1470726000"; d="scan'208";a="7690793" Message-ID: <1473713415.3916.48.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/8] sched, x86: Add SD_ASYM_PACKING flags to x86 cpu topology for ITMT From: Tim Chen To: Thomas Gleixner , Srinivas Pandruvada Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, mingo@redhat.com, bp@suse.de, x86@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 13:50:15 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <1473373615-51427-1-git-send-email-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> <1473373615-51427-2-git-send-email-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2 (3.18.5.2-1.fc23) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 15:10 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: > > > > From: Tim Chen > > > > We uses ASYM_PACKING feature in the scheduler to move tasks to more > > capable cpus that can be boosted to higher frequency. This is enabled by > > Intel Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 (ITMT).  We mark the sched domain > > topology level with SD_ASYM_PACKING flag for such systems to indicate > > scheduler can use the ASYM_PACKING feature to move load to the > > more capable cpus. > Sigh. This changelog does not tell anything about the nature of the patch, > the rationale for it etc. It's just a meaningless blurb. Okay, I can add more details about ITMT.  Will also be clearer if the ITMT patch (patch 5) comes before this one. > > +} > > +#else > > +#define x86_core_flags cpu_core_flags > > +#define x86_smt_flags cpu_smt_flags > > +#endif > No. We first rework the code so that the IMT stuff can be added in a later > patch easily. I'll move this patch to come after current patch 5. Thanks. Tim