Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] sched/topology: optimize topology_span_sane()

[Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>]

Ping again?

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 09:35:04AM -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> Ping?
> 
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 12:05:19PM -0700, Yury Norov wrote:
> > The function may call cpumask_equal with tl->mask(cpu) == tl->mask(i),
> > even when cpu != i. In such case, cpumask_equal() would always return
> > true, and we can proceed to the next iteration immediately.
> > 
> > Valentin Schneider shares on it:
> > 
> >   PKG can potentially hit that condition, and so can any
> >   sched_domain_mask_f that relies on the node masks...
> >   
> >   I'm thinking ideally we should have checks in place to
> >   ensure all node_to_cpumask_map[] masks are disjoint,
> >   then we could entirely skip the levels that use these
> >   masks in topology_span_sane(), but there's unfortunately
> >   no nice way to flag them... Also there would be cases
> >   where there's no real difference between PKG and NODE
> >   other than NODE is still based on a per-cpu cpumask and
> >   PKG isn't, so I don't see a nicer way to go about this.
> > 
> > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZrJk00cmVaUIAr4G@yury-ThinkPad/T/
> > v2:
> >  - defer initialization of 'mc' in patch #1 @Chen Yu;
> >  - more comments from Valentin Schneider.
> > 
> > 
> > Yury Norov (2):
> >   sched/topology: pre-compute topology_span_sane() loop params
> >   sched/topology: optimize topology_span_sane()
> > 
> >  kernel/sched/topology.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > -- 
> > 2.43.0