* Dietmar Eggemann <[email protected]> [2021-03-02 10:53:06]: > On 26/02/2021 17:40, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > [...] > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > index 8a8bd7b13634..d49bfcdc4a19 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > > @@ -5869,6 +5869,36 @@ wake_affine_weight(struct sched_domain *sd, struct > > task_struct *p, > > return this_eff_load < prev_eff_load ? this_cpu : nr_cpumask_bits; > > } > > > > +static int prefer_idler_llc(int this_cpu, int prev_cpu, int sync) > > +{ > > + struct sched_domain_shared *tsds, *psds; > > + int pnr_busy, pllc_size, tnr_busy, tllc_size, diff; > > + > > + tsds = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_llc_shared, this_cpu)); > > + tnr_busy = atomic_read(&tsds->nr_busy_cpus); > > + tllc_size = per_cpu(sd_llc_size, this_cpu); > > + > > + psds = rcu_dereference(per_cpu(sd_llc_shared, prev_cpu)); > > + pnr_busy = atomic_read(&psds->nr_busy_cpus); > > + pllc_size = per_cpu(sd_llc_size, prev_cpu); > > + > > + /* No need to compare, if both LLCs are fully loaded */ > > + if (pnr_busy == pllc_size && tnr_busy == pllc_size) > > ^ > shouldn't this be tllc_size ?
Yes, thanks for pointing out. -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju
