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 S1759217AbcJZL1I (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 26 Oct 2016 07:27:08 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:39632 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1759098AbcJZL1D (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 26 Oct 2016 07:27:03 -0400
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:24:27 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, 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,
        jolsa@redhat.com,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/9] x86/sysctl: Add sysctl for ITMT scheduling
 feature
In-Reply-To: <20161026112502.GB3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610261322580.4983@nanos>
References: <cover.1477000078.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> <b3f648c2c4cd36b6a043239bee8437a2060c0ac4.1477000078.git.tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610261231250.4983@nanos> <20161026112502.GB3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:49:36PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> 
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * ITMT capability automatically enables ITMT
> > > +	 * scheduling for small systems (single node).
> > > +	 */
> > > +	if (topology_num_packages() == 1)
> > > +		sysctl_sched_itmt_enabled = 1;
> > 
> > I really hate this. This is policy and the kernel should not impose
> > policy. Why would I like to have this enforced on my single socket XEON
> > server?
> 
> So this really wants to be enabled by default; otherwise nobody will use
> this, and it really does help single threaded workloads.

Fair enough. Then this wants to be documented.
 
> There were reservations on the multi-socket case of ITMT, maybe it would
> help to spell those out in great detail here. That is, have the comment
> explain the policy instead of simply stating what the code does (which
> is always bad comment policy, you can read the code just fine).

What is the objection for multi sockets? If it improves the behaviour then
why would this be a bad thing for multi sockets?

Thanks,

	tglx