On Wed, 30 Sep 2020, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29 2020 at 10:37, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Here, I fixed it..
>
> Well, no. What Balbir is trying to do here is to establish whether a
> task runs on a !SMT core. sched_smt_active() is system wide, but their
> setup is to have a bunch of SMT enabled cores and cores where SMT is off
> because the sibling is offlined. They affine these processes to non SMT
> cores and the check there validates that before it enabled that flush
> thingy.
>
> Of course this is best effort voodoo because if all CPUs in the mask are
> offlined then the task is moved to a SMT enabled one where L1D flush is
> useless. Though offlining their workhorse CPUs is probably not the daily
> business for obvious raisins.
>
Thanks, Thomas.
So, I will keep the semantics as-is, clean up the patch with
preempt_{dis,en}able() and send out a v2.
Lukas
