From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81E2CC2F42E for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:17:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4607320879 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:17:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=infradead.org header.i=@infradead.org header.b="yCzzC1HL" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730029AbfAUPR1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2019 10:17:27 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:51456 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729952AbfAUPR1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jan 2019 10:17:27 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=bfbXRV3EoloQoh+a3FDSY+veVyVPBb4w+VbV/lg1eww=; b=yCzzC1HLAdzPfFTfY1IxhzLYt LHHS5vCiF1bN+JnjLJLUBT+4iCANQwpoe1ujrZZgZNnh/n/KpauIy5ow8PuUYWhlXQBg0Ks8mN1ri 4nH3fO+7lNIwzbwXPp9ESidcWFAlcaZHHI5T2Ud3yVpFXenA9ioVaEwz6PUNu7IDUZhK1xHL0KpKy vfaK7LhoQWz36BMkujvi3ttk7t7lLcMIQLMLeXnCzX3RCLO6M78mDydyAs8k3QvEGB2qEJev+Ws8m 22u+iha+1Y1FAkDKTwFl6NQPwEuSBnotjTsK7xWDJMgElccuDLlWY995Ad7ZPpwbQVHY3h2Q68y6G 0lYL5jthA==; Received: from j217100.upc-j.chello.nl ([24.132.217.100] helo=hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtpsa (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1glbKB-0006Z7-0y; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:17:19 +0000 Received: by hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C7D162846D166; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 16:17:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 16:17:17 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Patrick Bellasi Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Tejun Heo , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Vincent Guittot , Viresh Kumar , Paul Turner , Quentin Perret , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Juri Lelli , Todd Kjos , Joel Fernandes , Steve Muckle , Suren Baghdasaryan Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/16] sched/core: uclamp: Add CPU's clamp buckets refcounting Message-ID: <20190121151717.GK27931@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20190115101513.2822-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20190115101513.2822-5-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190115101513.2822-5-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 10:15:01AM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > +#ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK > +struct uclamp_bucket { > + unsigned long value : bits_per(SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE); > + unsigned long tasks : BITS_PER_LONG - bits_per(SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE); > +}; > +struct uclamp_cpu { > + unsigned int value; /* 4 byte hole */ > + struct uclamp_bucket bucket[UCLAMP_BUCKETS]; > +}; With the default of 5, this UCLAMP_BUCKETS := 6, so struct uclamp_cpu ends up being 7 'unsigned long's, or 56 bytes on 64bit (with a 4 byte hole). > +#endif /* CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK */ > + > /* > * This is the main, per-CPU runqueue data structure. > * > @@ -835,6 +879,11 @@ struct rq { > unsigned long nr_load_updates; > u64 nr_switches; > > +#ifdef CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK > + /* Utilization clamp values based on CPU's RUNNABLE tasks */ > + struct uclamp_cpu uclamp[UCLAMP_CNT] ____cacheline_aligned; Which makes this 112 bytes with 8 bytes in 2 holes, which is short of 2 64 byte cachelines. Is that the best layout? > +#endif > + > struct cfs_rq cfs; > struct rt_rq rt; > struct dl_rq dl; > -- > 2.19.2 >