On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 23:04:14 +0900 Byungchul Park <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 09:32:44AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:17:36 +0900 > > Byungchul Park <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, that's what I intended. IOW: > > > > > > If (we found a proper sd, not having SD_PREFER_SIBLING?) > > > use the sd; > > > else if (we found a proper sd, having SD_PREFER_SIBLING?) > > > use the smallest sd among SD_PREFER_SIBLING sds; > > > > BTW, what do you mean by "smallest sd"? > > There might be more than one SD_PREFER_SIBLING domain in its hierachy. > In that case, we have to choose one of them. Imagine the following > example, in case that the source cpu is cpu 0: > > [Domain hierachy for cpu 0] > > cpu 0 -+ domain 1 -+ > | SD_PREFER_SIBLING flaged | > cpu 1 -+ +- domain 2 > | SD_PREFER_SIBLING flaged > cpu 2 -+---------------------------+ > | > cpu 3 -+ > > In this case, we have to choose domain 1 than 2, because cpus in domain 1 > are closer to the source cpu, cpu 0. That's what I meant. Then you mean "closest sd", at least that makes more sense in the context. -- Steve
