Re: [Patch] sched: new sched domain for representing multi-core

[Andrew Morton]

"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps we should just make SMT and MC disjoint in Kconfig.  Your call.
> 
> No. SMT and MC are not disjoint.

It's still not clear what's supposed to be happening here.

In build_sched_domains() we still have code which does:


	for_each_cpu_mask(...) {
		...
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_MC
		...
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
		...
#endif
		...
	}
	...
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
	...
#endif
	...
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_MC
	...
#endif

So in the first case the SCHED_SMT code will win and in the second case the
SCHED_MC code will win.  I think.  The code is so repetitive in there that
`patch' may have put the hunks in the wrong place.

What is the design intention here?  What do we _want_ to happen if both MC
and SMT are enabled?



Also the path tests CONFIG_SCHED_MT in a few places where it meant to use
CONFIG_SCHED_SMT, which rather casts doubt upon the testing quality.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/