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:   Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:08:10 +0100
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>
To:     Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Cc:     "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
        Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@intel.com>, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] sched/fair: select idle cpu from idle cpumask
 in sched domain
Message-ID: <20200914110809.2nu7vt2s3lzlvxoz@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20200910054203.525420-1-aubrey.li@intel.com>
 <20200910054203.525420-2-aubrey.li@intel.com>
 <20200911162853.xldy6fvvqph2lahj@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <3f1571ea-b74c-fc40-2696-39ef3fe8b968@linux.intel.com>
 <jhjmu1s644x.mognet@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <jhjmu1s644x.mognet@arm.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 09/14/20 11:31, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> 
> On 12/09/20 00:04, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> >>> +++ b/include/linux/sched/topology.h
> >>> @@ -65,8 +65,21 @@ struct sched_domain_shared {
> >>>     atomic_t	ref;
> >>>     atomic_t	nr_busy_cpus;
> >>>     int		has_idle_cores;
> >>> +	/*
> >>> +	 * Span of all idle CPUs in this domain.
> >>> +	 *
> >>> +	 * NOTE: this field is variable length. (Allocated dynamically
> >>> +	 * by attaching extra space to the end of the structure,
> >>> +	 * depending on how many CPUs the kernel has booted up with)
> >>> +	 */
> >>> +	unsigned long	idle_cpus_span[];
> >>
> >> Can't you use cpumask_var_t and zalloc_cpumask_var() instead?
> >
> > I can use the existing free code. Do we have a problem of this?
> >
> 
> Nah, flexible array members are the preferred approach here; this also

Is this your opinion or a rule written somewhere I missed?

> means we don't let CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK dictate where this gets
> allocated.
> 
> See struct numa_group, struct sched_group, struct sched_domain, struct
> em_perf_domain...

struct root_domain, struct cpupri_vec, struct generic_pm_domain,
struct irq_common_data..

Use cpumask_var_t.

Both approach look correct to me, so no objection in principle. cpumask_var_t
looks neater IMO and will be necessary once more than one cpumask are required
in a struct.

> 
> >>
> >> The patch looks useful. Did it help you with any particular workload? It'd be
> >> good to expand on that in the commit message.
> >>
> > Odd, that included in patch v1 0/1, did you receive it?

Aubrey,

Sorry I didn't see that no. It's important justification to be part of the
commit message, I think worth adding it.

Thanks

--
Qais Yousef