Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754914Ab0A1Wjd (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:39:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750801Ab0A1Wjd (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:39:33 -0500 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:37411 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754246Ab0A1Wjc (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:39:32 -0500 Message-ID: <4B621213.2010805@austin.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:39:15 -0600 From: Joel Schopp User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt CC: Peter Zijlstra , ego@in.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/2] powerpc: implement arch_scale_smt_power for Power7 References: <1264017638.5717.121.camel@jschopp-laptop> <1264017847.5717.132.camel@jschopp-laptop> <1264548495.12239.56.camel@jschopp-laptop> <1264553577.3601.144.camel@pasglop> In-Reply-To: <1264553577.3601.144.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1313 Lines: 32 > > What about an early exit if !cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_SMT) ? That would > de-facto compile it out for 32-bit CPU platforms that don't support SMT > at all and avoid some overhead on POWER3,4,970... > If the SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER flag isn't set for the sched domain this function isn't called. So an extra check here is wasteful. > >> + unsigned long weight = cpumask_weight(sibling_map); >> + unsigned long smt_gain = sd->smt_gain; >> + >> + if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ASYNC_SMT4) && weight == 4) { >> > > So that will only handle the case where all 4 threads are online right ? > There is no provision for the case where the user play tricks like > offlining thread, in which case it will stop trying to "push down" > processes right ? Not a big deal per-se I suppose, just something to be > aware of. > I've tested it with manually offlined threads and it behaves as I'd like it to. > Also, can you add a comment as to why this is done in the code itself ? > above the if (cpu_has_feature(...)) statement. > OK. v3 coming soon with the comment. -- 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/