From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: subhra mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, prakash.sangappa@oracle.com,
dhaval.giani@oracle.com, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] sched: Introduce new interface for scheduler soft affinity
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 18:23:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190702162312.GY3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190626224718.21973-2-subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com>
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 03:47:16PM -0700, subhra mazumdar wrote:
> diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> index 1183741..b863fa8 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -652,6 +652,8 @@ struct task_struct {
> unsigned int policy;
> int nr_cpus_allowed;
> cpumask_t cpus_allowed;
You're patching dead code, that no longer exists.
> + cpumask_t cpus_preferred;
> + bool affinity_unequal;
Urgh, no. cpumask_t is an abomination and having one of them is already
unfortunate, having two is really not sane, esp. since for 99% of the
tasks they'll be exactly the same.
Why not add cpus_ptr_soft or something like that, and have it point at
cpus_mask by default, and when it needs to not be the same, allocate a
cpumask for it. That also gets rid of that unequal thing.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-02 16:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-26 22:47 [RFC PATCH 0/3] Scheduler Soft Affinity subhra mazumdar
2019-06-26 22:47 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] sched: Introduce new interface for scheduler soft affinity subhra mazumdar
2019-07-02 16:23 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2019-07-02 16:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-26 22:47 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] sched: change scheduler to give preference to soft affinity CPUs subhra mazumdar
2019-07-02 17:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-17 3:01 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-07-18 11:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-19 2:55 ` Subhra Mazumdar
2019-06-26 22:47 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] sched: introduce tunables to control soft affinity subhra mazumdar
2019-07-18 10:08 ` Srikar Dronamraju
2019-07-19 7:23 ` Subhra Mazumdar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190702162312.GY3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=dhaval.giani@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=prakash.sangappa@oracle.com \
--cc=subhra.mazumdar@oracle.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®