From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1756630AbcILVAf (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 12 Sep 2016 17:00:35 -0400
Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:38589 "EHLO mga11.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752707AbcILVAd (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 12 Sep 2016 17:00:33 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,324,1470726000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="7693653"
Message-ID: <1473714031.3916.57.camel@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/8] sched, x86: use arch_update_cpu_topology to
 indicate x86 need sched domain rebuild
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
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 14:00:31 -0700
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1609101532450.2804@nanos>
References: <1473373615-51427-1-git-send-email-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
         <1473373615-51427-5-git-send-email-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
         <alpine.DEB.2.20.1609101532450.2804@nanos>
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: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, 2016-09-10 at 18:20 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> 
> How is this related to sched? And please stop writing lengthy sentences in
> the subject line.


> > From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > Provides x86 with arch_update_cpu_topology function. This function
> > allows us to indicate that a condition is detected that the sched
> > domain of x86 needs a complete rebuild.
> scheduler domains are not x86 specific .... 


> > 
> > This is done by setting the x86_topology_update flag.
> So without reading the patch I expect that the function sets the
> x86_topology_update flag. Crap.
> 
> What you really want to say is:
> 
>   The scheduler calls arch_update_cpu_topology() to check whether the
>   scheduler domains have to be rebuilt.
> 
>   So far x86 has no requirement for this, but the upcoming IMTI support
>   makes this necessary.
> 
>   Request the rebuild when the x86 internal update flag is set.
> 
> Or something along these lines. Changelog is a important part of a patch,
> really..

Sure.  Will do.

> 
> > 
> > +/* Flag to indicate if a complete sched domain rebuild is required */
> > +bool x86_topology_update;
> > +
> > +int arch_update_cpu_topology(void)
> > +{
> > +	if (x86_topology_update) {
> > +		x86_topology_update = false;
> > +		return 1;
> > +	} else
> > +		return 0;
> That lacks braces around the else path, but why aren't you just doing the
> obvious:
> 
> 	if (!x86_topology_update)
> 		return false;
> 	
> 	x86_topology_update = false;
> 	return true;
> 
> That would be too simple to read, right?;

Sure.  Will do.


> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx