On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijls...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
> So we're looking for an idle cpu around @target. We prefer a cpu of an
> idle core, since SMT-siblings share L[12] cache. The way we do this is
> by iterating the topology tree downwards starting at the LLC (L3) cache
> level. Its groups are either the SMT-siblings or singleton groups.
So if it'sally guaranteed to be SMT-siblings or singleton groups, then
the whole "for_each_cpu()" is a total disaster. That's a truly
expensive way to look up adjacent CPU's. Is there no saner way to look
up that thing? Like a simple circular list of SMT siblings (I realize
that on x86 that list is either one or two, but other SMT
implementations are groups of four or more).
So I suspect your patch largely makes things faster (avoid those
insane cpumask operations), but the for_each_cpu() one is still an
absolutely horrible way to find a couple of basically statically known
(modulo hotplug, which is disabled here anyway) CPU's. So even if the
algorithm makes sense at some higher level, it doesn't really seem to
make sense from an implementation standpoint.
Also, do we really want to spread things out that aggressively?
How/why do we know that we don't want to share L2 caches, for example?
It sounds like a bad idea from a power standpoint, and possibly
performance too.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
