On 21 December 2012 09:53, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 21 December 2012 06:47, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> Hi Vincent,
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:11:11AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 13 December 2012 03:17, Alex Shi wrote:
>>> > On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> >> +sta
On 21 December 2012 06:47, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:11:11AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 13 December 2012 03:17, Alex Shi wrote:
>> > On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> >> +static bool is_buddy_busy(int cpu)
>> >> +{
>> >> + struct
Hi Vincent,
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:11:11AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 13 December 2012 03:17, Alex Shi wrote:
> > On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> +static bool is_buddy_busy(int cpu)
> >> +{
> >> + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + *
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Vincent Guittot
wrote:
> On 17 December 2012 16:24, Alex Shi wrote:
The scheme below tries to summaries the idea:
Socket | socket 0 | socket 1 | socket 2 | socket 3 |
LCPU| 0 | 1-15 | 16 | 17-31 | 32 | 33-47 |
On 17 December 2012 16:24, Alex Shi wrote:
>>> The scheme below tries to summaries the idea:
>>>
>>> Socket | socket 0 | socket 1 | socket 2 | socket 3 |
>>> LCPU| 0 | 1-15 | 16 | 17-31 | 32 | 33-47 | 48 | 49-63 |
>>> buddy conf0 | 0 | 0| 1 | 16| 2
>> The scheme below tries to summaries the idea:
>>
>> Socket | socket 0 | socket 1 | socket 2 | socket 3 |
>> LCPU| 0 | 1-15 | 16 | 17-31 | 32 | 33-47 | 48 | 49-63 |
>> buddy conf0 | 0 | 0| 1 | 16| 2 | 32| 3 | 48|
>> buddy conf1 | 0 | 0
On Fri, 2012-12-14 at 11:43 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 14 December 2012 08:45, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-12-14 at 14:36 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> >> On 12/14/2012 12:45 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> >> > Do you have further ideas for buddy cpu on such example?
> >> >>> > >
>
On 16 December 2012 08:12, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 05:33 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 14 December 2012 02:46, Alex Shi wrote:
>>> On 12/13/2012 11:48 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 13 December 2012 15:53, Vincent Guittot
wrote:
> On 13 December 2012 15:25, Alex Shi wro
>
> CPU is a bug that slipped into domain degeneration. You should have
> SIBLING/MC/NUMA (chasing that down is on todo).
Uh, the SD_PREFER_SIBLING on cpu domain is recovered by myself for a share
memory benchmark regression. But consider all the situations, I think the
flag is better to be r
On 12/14/2012 05:33 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 14 December 2012 02:46, Alex Shi wrote:
>> On 12/13/2012 11:48 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 13 December 2012 15:53, Vincent Guittot
>>> wrote:
On 13 December 2012 15:25, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 06:11 PM, Vincent Guittot w
On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 22:25 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 06:11 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 13 December 2012 03:17, Alex Shi wrote:
> >> On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >>> During the creation of sched_domain, we define a pack buddy CPU for each
> >>> CPU
> >>> wh
On Fri, 2012-12-14 at 14:36 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 12:45 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> > Do you have further ideas for buddy cpu on such example?
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Which kind of sched_domain configuration have you for such system ?
> >>> > > and how many sched_domain level have
On 14 December 2012 08:45, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-12-14 at 14:36 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>> On 12/14/2012 12:45 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> >> > Do you have further ideas for buddy cpu on such example?
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > Which kind of sched_domain configuration have you for such s
On 14 December 2012 02:46, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 11:48 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 13 December 2012 15:53, Vincent Guittot
>> wrote:
>>> On 13 December 2012 15:25, Alex Shi wrote:
On 12/13/2012 06:11 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 13 December 2012 03:17, Alex Shi wrote
On 12/14/2012 03:45 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-12-14 at 14:36 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>> On 12/14/2012 12:45 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Do you have further ideas for buddy cpu on such example?
>>>
>>> Which kind of sched_domain configuration have you for such system ?
>>>
On 12/14/2012 12:45 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> > Do you have further ideas for buddy cpu on such example?
>>> > >
>>> > > Which kind of sched_domain configuration have you for such system ?
>>> > > and how many sched_domain level have you ?
>> >
>> > it is general X86 domain configuration. with
On 12/13/2012 11:48 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 13 December 2012 15:53, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 13 December 2012 15:25, Alex Shi wrote:
>>> On 12/13/2012 06:11 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 13 December 2012 03:17, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 13 December 2012 15:53, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 13 December 2012 15:25, Alex Shi wrote:
>> On 12/13/2012 06:11 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On 13 December 2012 03:17, Alex Shi wrote:
On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> During the creation of sched_domain, we define
On 13 December 2012 15:25, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 06:11 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 13 December 2012 03:17, Alex Shi wrote:
>>> On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
During the creation of sched_domain, we define a pack buddy CPU for each
CPU
when one is ava
On 12/13/2012 06:11 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 13 December 2012 03:17, Alex Shi wrote:
>> On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> During the creation of sched_domain, we define a pack buddy CPU for each CPU
>>> when one is available. We want to pack at all levels where a group of C
On 13 December 2012 03:17, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> During the creation of sched_domain, we define a pack buddy CPU for each CPU
>> when one is available. We want to pack at all levels where a group of CPU can
>> be power gated independently from others.
On 12/13/2012 10:17 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> During the creation of sched_domain, we define a pack buddy CPU for each CPU
>> when one is available. We want to pack at all levels where a group of CPU can
>> be power gated independently from others.
>> O
On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> During the creation of sched_domain, we define a pack buddy CPU for each CPU
> when one is available. We want to pack at all levels where a group of CPU can
> be power gated independently from others.
> On a system that can't power gate a group of CP
During the creation of sched_domain, we define a pack buddy CPU for each CPU
when one is available. We want to pack at all levels where a group of CPU can
be power gated independently from others.
On a system that can't power gate a group of CPUs independently, the flag is
set at all sched_domain l
24 matches
Mail list logo
