On Tue, 7 May 2019 15:31:27 +0100
Quentin Perret <quentin.per...@arm.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 May 2019 at 16:25:23 (+0200), luca abeni wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 May 2019 14:48:52 +0100
> > Quentin Perret <quentin.per...@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Luca,
> > >
> > > On Monday 06 May 2019 at 06:48:31 (+0200), Luca Abeni wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > > > b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c index edfcf8d982e4..646d6d349d53
> > > > 100644 --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > > > @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, cpu_scale) =
> > > > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;
> > > > void topology_set_cpu_scale(unsigned int cpu, unsigned long
> > > > capacity) {
> > > > + topology_update_cpu_capacity(cpu, per_cpu(cpu_scale,
> > > > cpu), capacity);
> > >
> > > Why is that one needed ? Don't you end up re-building the sched
> > > domains after this anyways ?
> >
> > If I remember correctly, this function was called at boot time when
> > the capacities are assigned to the CPU cores.
> >
> > I do not remember if the sched domain was re-built after this call,
> > but I admit I do not know this part of the kernel very well...
>
> Right and things moved recently in this area, see bb1fbdd3c3fd
> ("sched/topology, drivers/base/arch_topology: Rebuild the sched_domain
> hierarchy when capacities change")
Ah, thanks! I missed this change when rebasing the patchset.
I guess this part of the patch has to be updated (and probably became
useless?), then.
Thanks,
Luca
>
> > This achieved the effect of correctly setting up the "rd_capacity"
> > field, but I do not know if there is a better/simpler way to achieve
> > the same result :)
>
> OK, that's really an implementation detail, so no need to worry too
> much about it at the RFC stage I suppose :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Quentin
