On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 01:22:07PM +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 16:47 +0530, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> > From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <e...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > Each of the SMT4 cores forming a fused-core are more or less
> > independent units. Thus when multiple tasks are scheduled to run on
> > the fused core, we get the best performance when the tasks are spread
> > across the pair of SMT4 cores.
> >
> > Since the threads in the pair of SMT4 cores of an interleaved big-core
> > are numbered {0,2,4,6} and {1,3,5,7} respectively, enable ASYM_SMT on
> > such interleaved big-cores that will bias the load-balancing of tasks
> > on smaller numbered threads, which will automatically result in
> > spreading the tasks uniformly across the associated pair of SMT4
> > cores.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gautham R. Shenoy <e...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> > arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
> > index 9ca7148..0153f01 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/smp.c
> > @@ -1082,7 +1082,7 @@ static int powerpc_smt_flags(void)
> > {
> > int flags = SD_SHARE_CPUCAPACITY | SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES;
> >
> > - if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ASYM_SMT)) {
> > + if (cpu_has_feature(CPU_FTR_ASYM_SMT) || has_interleaved_big_core) {
>
> Shouldn't we just set CPU_FTR_ASYM_SMT and leave this code
unchanged?
Yes, that would have the same effect. I refrained from doing that
since I thought CPU_FTR_ASYM_SMT has the "lower numbered threads
expedite thread-folding" connotation from the POWER7 generation.
If it is ok to overload CPU_FTR_ASYM_SMT, we can do what you suggest
and have all the changes in setup-common.c
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
