Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200408095012.3819-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
 <20200408095012.3819-2-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> <CAKfTPtC4_+dTddLdoFMdzUvsXwWyi3bUOXcg9kstC8RzZS_a+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <42cc3878-4c57-96ba-3ebd-1b4d4ef87fae@arm.com> <CAKfTPtDS_qwPH+TwoFWPz6QRzG1N=t46ZvGN=w6zbOtnGAdOeQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200414124503.GA236568@google.com> <7adf893b-769d-ffa4-71da-d9a93646a88c@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <7adf893b-769d-ffa4-71da-d9a93646a88c@arm.com>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 14 Apr 2020 17:43:33 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtAG8SsraBhuhBT0=aw7PpL+TEZw2qyeo=+ogRP+7+MhdA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched/topology: Store root domain CPU capacity sum
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc:     Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>,
        Alessio Balsini <balsini@google.com>,
        Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@matbug.net>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 17:27, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 14.04.20 14:45, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 Apr 2020 at 19:03:57 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> Or we can do the opposite and only use capacity_orig_of()/rq->cpu_capacity_orig.
> >>
> >> Is there a case where the max cpu capacity changes over time ? So I
> >> would prefer to use cpu_capacity_orig which is a field of scheduler
> >> instead of always calling an external arch specific function
> >
> > Note however that using arch_scale_cpu_capacity() would be more
> > efficient, especially on non-arm/arm64 systems where it is a
> > compile-time constant.
>
> or essentially all ARCHs not defining it.
>
> >
> > It's probably a matter of personal taste, but I find rq->cpu_capacity_orig
> > superfluous. It wastes space without actually giving you anything no?
> > Anybody remembers why it was introduced in the first place?
>
> v3.18 arm providing arch_scale_cpu_capacity()
> v4.1  introduction of rq->cpu_capacity_orig
> v4.10 arm64 providing arch_scale_cpu_capacity()
> ...
>
> So it's down to the question of 'minimizing the scheduler calls to an
> external arch function' vs 'efficiency'.

Using cpu_capacity_orig will provide more consistency because it will
be set while setting the sched_domain topology