Hi,
On 16 November 2012 19:32, Liviu Dudau <liviu.du...@arm.com> wrote:
> From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmus...@arm.com>
>
> Re-enable SD_SHARE_POWERLINE to reflect the power domains of TC2.
> ---
> arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
> index 317dac6..4d34e0e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c
> @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ struct cputopo_arm cpu_topology[NR_CPUS];
>
> int arch_sd_share_power_line(void)
> {
> - return 0*SD_SHARE_POWERLINE;
> + return 1*SD_SHARE_POWERLINE;
I'm not sure to catch your goal. With this modification, the power
line (or power domain) is shared at all level which should disable the
packing mechanism. But in a previous patch you fix the update packing
loop so I assume that you want to use it. Which kind of configuration
you would like to have among the proposal below ?
cpu : CPU0 | CPU1 | CPU2 | CPU3 | CPU4
buddy conf 1 : CPU2 | CPU0 | CPU2 | CPU2 | CPU2
buddy conf 2 : CPU2 | CPU2 | CPU2 | CPU2 | CPU2
buddy conf 3 : -1 | -1 | -1 | -1 | -1
When we look at the git://git.linaro.org/arm/big.LITTLE/mp.git
big-LITTLE-MP-master-v12, we can see that you have defined a custom
sched_domain which hasn't been updated with SD_SHARE_POWERLINE flag so
the flag is cleared at CPU level. Based on this, I would say that you
want buddy conf 2 ? but I would say that buddy conf 1 should give
better result. Have you tried both ?
Regards,
Vincent
> }
>
> const struct cpumask *cpu_coregroup_mask(int cpu)
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linaro-dev mailing list
> linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
