From:   Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
To:     "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc:     Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri@intel.com>,
        "Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>,
        "Tim C . Chen" <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 08/10] sched/topology: Remove SHARED_CHILD from ASYM_PACKING
Date:   Mon,  6 Feb 2023 20:58:36 -0800
Message-Id: <20230207045838.11243-9-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230207045838.11243-1-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
References: <20230207045838.11243-1-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

Only x86 and Power7 use ASYM_PACKING. They use it differently.

Power7 has cores of equal priority, but the SMT siblings of a core have
different priorities. Parent scheduling domains do not need (nor have) the
ASYM_PACKING flag. SHARED_CHILD is not needed. Using SHARED_PARENT would
cause the topology debug code to complain.

X86 has cores of different priority, but all the SMT siblings of the core
have equal priority. It needs ASYM_PACKING at the MC level, but not at the
SMT level (it also needs it at upper levels if they have scheduling groups
of different priority). Removing ASYM_PACKING from the SMT domain causes
the topology debug code to complain.

Remove SHARED_CHILD for now. We still need a topology check that satisfies
both architectures.

Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>
Cc: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: Tim C. Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Suggested-by: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
---
Changes since v2:
 * Introduced this patch.

Changes since v1:
 * N/A
---
 include/linux/sched/sd_flags.h | 5 +----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/sched/sd_flags.h b/include/linux/sched/sd_flags.h
index 57bde66d95f7..800238854ba5 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched/sd_flags.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched/sd_flags.h
@@ -132,12 +132,9 @@ SD_FLAG(SD_SERIALIZE, SDF_SHARED_PARENT | SDF_NEEDS_GROUPS)
 /*
  * Place busy tasks earlier in the domain
  *
- * SHARED_CHILD: Usually set on the SMT level. Technically could be set further
- *               up, but currently assumed to be set from the base domain
- *               upwards (see update_top_cache_domain()).
  * NEEDS_GROUPS: Load balancing flag.
  */
-SD_FLAG(SD_ASYM_PACKING, SDF_SHARED_CHILD | SDF_NEEDS_GROUPS)
+SD_FLAG(SD_ASYM_PACKING,  SDF_NEEDS_GROUPS)
 
 /*
  * Prefer to place tasks in a sibling domain
-- 
2.25.1