Re: [RFC] sched: CPU topology try
From: Vincent Guittot
Date: Tue Jan 07 2014 - 03:23:10 EST
On 6 January 2014 17:21, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 02:13:51PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> This patch applies on top of the two patches  that have been proposed by
>> Peter for creating a new way to initialize sched_domain. It includes some minor
>> compilation fixes and a trial of using this new method on ARM platform.
>>  https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/5/239
>>  https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/5/449
>> Based on the results of this tests, my feeling about this new way to init the
>> sched_domain is a bit mitigated.
> Yay :-)
>> We can add more levels that will describe other dependency/independency like
>> the frequency scaling dependency and as a result the final sched_domain
>> topology will have additional levels (if they have not been removed during
>> the degenerate sequence)
> Yeah, this 'creative' use of degenerate domains is pretty neat ;-)
>> My concern is about the configuration of the table that is used to create the
>> sched_domain. Some levels are "duplicated" with different flags configuration
>> which make the table not easily readable and we must also take care of the
>> order because parents have to gather all cpus of its childs. So we must
>> choose which capabilities will be a subset of the other one. The order is
>> almost straight forward when we describe 1 or 2 kind of capabilities
>> (package ressource sharing and power sharing) but it can become complex if we
>> want to add more.
> I think I see what you're saying, although I hope that won't actually
> happen in real hardware -- that said, people do tend to do crazy with
> these ARM chips :/
it should be ok for ARM chip because the cores in a cluster share the
same clock but it doesn't mean that it will not be possible in a near
future or on other arch.
> We should also try and be conservative in the topology flags we want to
> add, which should further reduce the amount of pain here.
yes, i see a interest for powerdomain sharing and clock sharing flags
so it should minimize the complexity
> For now I do think this is a viable approach.. Yes its a bit cumbersome
> for these asymmetric systems but it does give us enough to start
> I yet have to read Morton's emails on the P and C states, will try to
> have a look at those tomorrow with a hopefully fresher brain -- somehow
> its the end of the day already..
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/