From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752524AbcEKSLf (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 May 2016 14:11:35 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:60148 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751844AbcEKSLe (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 May 2016 14:11:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 20:11:10 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Matt Fleming Cc: mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clm@fb.com, mgalbraith@suse.de, tglx@linutronix.de, fweisbec@gmail.com, srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mikey@neuling.org, anton@samba.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/7] sched: Replace sd_busy/nr_busy_cpus with sched_domain_shared Message-ID: <20160511181110.GC3205@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20160509104807.284575300@infradead.org> <20160509105210.642395937@infradead.org> <20160511115555.GT2839@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20160511123345.GD3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160511123345.GD3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 02:33:45PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Do we want to model this co-operative L3 slices thing as a sort of > node-wide LLC for the purpose of the scheduler ? > > the scheduler does try and scale things by 'assuming' LLC := node. So this whole series is about selecting idle CPUs to run stuff on. With the current PPC setup we would never consider placing a task outside of its core. If we were to add a node wide cache domain, the scheduler would look to place a task across cores if there is an idle core to be had. Would something like that be beneficial?