Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:47:38 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>, Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
        Alessio Balsini <balsini@google.com>,
        Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@matbug.net>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched/deadline: Improve admission control for
 asymmetric CPU capacities
Message-ID: <20200417154738.GT9767@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20200408095012.3819-1-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
 <20200408095012.3819-3-dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
 <jhjeesyw96u.mognet@arm.com>
 <20200408153032.447e098d@nowhere>
 <jhjblo2vx60.mognet@arm.com>
 <31620965-e1e7-6854-ad46-8192ee4b41af@arm.com>
 <20200417121945.GM9767@localhost.localdomain>
 <8734b37e-5602-79dc-c7a8-c41fd9eb86b5@arm.com>
 <20200417150828.GS9767@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200417150828.GS9767@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 17/04/20 17:08, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 17/04/20 16:55, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> > On 17.04.20 14:19, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > On 09/04/20 19:29, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > >> Maybe we can do a hybrid. We have rd->span and rd->sum_cpu_capacity and
> > >> with the help of an extra per-cpu cpumask we could just
> > > 
> > > Hummm, I like the idea, but
> > > 
> > >> DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, dl_bw_mask);
> > >>
> > >> dl_bw_cpus(int i) {
> > > 
> > > This works if calls are always local to the rd we are interested into
> > > (argument 'i' isn't used). Are we always doing that?
> > 
> > I thought so. The existing dl_bw_cpus(int i) implementation already
> > assumes this by using:
> > 
> >     struct root_domain *rd = cpu_rq(i)->rd;
> 
> Hummm, can't dl_task_can_attach() call it with a dest_cpu different from
> this_cpu?
> 
> Current implementation uses 'i' argument to get to the right root_domain
> (e.g., when moving tasks between execlusive set).
> 
> >     ...

Bah, forget that. If everything else stays the same (get rd using 'i')
this should work ok.