On Friday 23 Mar 2018 at 18:13:56 (-0700), Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Morten,
>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Morten Rasmussen
> <morten.rasmus...@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 01:10:22PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
[...]
> > You mean if SD_BALANCE_WAKE isn't set on sched_domains?
>
> Yes.
>
> > The current code seems to rely on that flag to be set to work correctly.
> > Otherwise, the loop might bail out on !want_affine and we end up doing
> > the find_energy_efficient_cpu() on the lowest level sched_domain even if
> > there is higher level one which isn't over-utilized.
> >
> > However, SD_BALANCE_WAKE should be set if SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY is set so
> > sd == NULL shouldn't be possible? This only holds as long as we only
> > want EAS for asymmetric systems.
>
> Yes, I see you had topology code that set SD_BALANCE_WAKE for ASYM. It
> makes sense to me then, thanks for the clarification.
>
> Still I feel it is a bit tedious/confusing when reading code to draw
> the conclusion about why sd is checked first before doing
> find_energy_efficient_cpu (and that sd will != NULL for ASYM systems).
> If energy_sd is set, then we can just proceed with EAS without
> checking that sd != NULL. This function in mainline is already pretty
> confusing as it is :-(
Right I see your point. The code is correct as is, but I agree that having
a code structured as
if (energy_sd) {
new_cpu = find_energy_efficient_cpu(energy_sd, p, prev_cpu);
} else if (!sd) {
...
might be easier to understand and functionally equivalent. What do you
think ?
Thanks,
Quentin
