Gautham R Shenoy <e...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> 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.
The above code is the only use of the feature, so I don't think we need
to worry about any other connotations.
> 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
Yeah let's do that.
cheers
