Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:25:22 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com>, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, oleg@redhat.com, fweisbec@gmail.com,
        darren@dvhart.com, johan.eker@ericsson.com, p.faure@akatech.ch,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, claudio@evidence.eu.com,
        michael@amarulasolutions.com, fchecconi@gmail.com,
        tommaso.cucinotta@sssup.it, nicola.manica@disi.unitn.it,
        luca.abeni@unitn.it, dhaval.giani@gmail.com, hgu1972@gmail.com,
        paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, raistlin@linux.it, insop.song@gmail.com,
        liming.wang@windriver.com, jkacur@redhat.com,
        harald.gustafsson@ericsson.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        bruce.ashfield@windriver.com--no-chain-reply-to
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/14] sched: make dl_bw a sub-quota of rt_bw
Message-ID: <20131015122522.GB2402@gmail.com>
References: <1381747426-31334-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@gmail.com>
 <1381747426-31334-13-git-send-email-juri.lelli@gmail.com>
 <20131014140618.GA26604@gmail.com>
 <525D1234.5060001@gmail.com>
 <20131015102621.GE10651@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131015102621.GE10651@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2126
Lines: 67


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 12:00:20PM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 10/14/2013 04:06 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > >> +		struct dl_bw *dl_b = &cpu_rq(i)->rd->dl_bw;
> > >> +#else
> > >> +		struct dl_bw *dl_b = &cpu_rq(i)->dl.dl_bw;
> > >> +#endif
> > > 
> > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > >> +		struct dl_bw *dl_b = &cpu_rq(i)->rd->dl_bw;
> > >> +#else
> > >> +		struct dl_bw *dl_b = &cpu_rq(i)->dl.dl_bw;
> > >> +#endif
> > > 
> > > Btw., this kind of SMP/UP assymetry pattern really sucks. Why not make UP 
> > > use the SMP data structure, even if it's degenerate?
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes, I don't like it either, but that comes from the fact that it seemed to me
> > that, semantically, bandwidth for -deadline tasks has to be associated to the
> > single runqueue in UP and to the root_domain for SMP. In UP root_domain is
> > compiled out, so I'm not sure to understand what you suggest. I could probably
> > let dl_bw live on runqueues with the assumption that all the runqueues from the
> > same root_domain have the same dl_bw, that represents the dl_bw of the
> > root_domain. But I don't like this replication either :(.
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> 
> static inline struct dl_bw *dl_bw_of(int i)
> {
> 	return &cpu_rq(i)->rd->dl_bw;
> }
> 
> #else
> 
> static inline struct dl_bw *dl_bw_of(int i)
> {
> 	return &cpu_rq(i)->dl.dl_bw;
> }
> 
> #endif
> 
> ?

Really, please make it _symmetric_ ...

Single core systems are becoming a historic curiosity, should we should 
justify every piece of extra complexity we add for them.

So I'd rather see obvious SMP code where the UP case works fine too, and 
_then_ maybe check a separate patch that adds the UP optimization, with 
(object size) numbers proving that it's worth it, etc.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/