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 S1750933AbdHRFfA (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 18 Aug 2017 01:35:00 -0400
Received: from LGEAMRELO12.lge.com ([156.147.23.52]:49882 "EHLO
        lgeamrelo12.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750709AbdHRFe7 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 18 Aug 2017 01:34:59 -0400
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.127
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.222.33
X-Original-MAILFROM: byungchul.park@lge.com
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:34:55 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: "Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel.opensrc@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, mingo@kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        juri.lelli@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/2] Make find_later_rq() choose a closer cpu in
 topology
Message-ID: <20170818053455.GA20323@X58A-UD3R>
References: <1502077834-11137-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <20170818012555.GY20323@X58A-UD3R>
 <CAEi0qN=i7ZCmzrEKQ1DWTjx4FB3gZVUzJ6bTgb4HLU09k0C9dw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAEi0qN=i7ZCmzrEKQ1DWTjx4FB3gZVUzJ6bTgb4HLU09k0C9dw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 09:51:34PM -0700, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 12:50:32PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> >> When cpudl_find() returns any among free_cpus, the cpu might not be
> >> closer than others, considering sched domain. For example:
> >>
> >>    this_cpu: 15
> >>    free_cpus: 0, 1,..., 14 (== later_mask)
> >>    best_cpu: 0
> >>
> >>    topology:
> >>
> >>    0 --+
> >>        +--+
> >>    1 --+  |
> >>           +-- ... --+
> >>    2 --+  |         |
> >>        +--+         |
> >>    3 --+            |
> >>
> >>    ...             ...
> >>
> >>    12 --+           |
> >>         +--+        |
> >>    13 --+  |        |
> >>            +-- ... -+
> >>    14 --+  |
> >>         +--+
> >>    15 --+
> >>
> >> In this case, it would be best to select 14 since it's a free cpu and
> >> closest to 15(this_cpu). However, currently the code select 0(best_cpu)
> >> even though that's just any among free_cpus. Fix it.
> >
> > Could you let me know your opinions about this?
> 
> Patch looks good to me, I would also add a comment ontop of
> fallback_cpu (I think Steve mentioned similar thing at [1])
> 
> /*
>  * fallback is the closest CPU in the closest SD incase
>  * all domains are PREFER_SIBLING
>  */
>  if (fallback_cpu == -1)
>      fallback_cpu = best_cpu;
> 
> And clarify this in the commit message.

Right. I will add it.

Thank you very much,
Byungchul