On 14 July 2014 15:51, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 05:17:44PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> > In any case, its feels rather arbitrary to me. What about machines where >> > there's no cache sharing at all (the traditional SMP systems). This >> > thing you're trying to do still seems to make sense there. >> >> ok, I thought that traditional SMP systems have this flag set at core >> level. > > Yeah, with 1 core, so its effectively disabled. > >> I mean ARM platforms have the flag for CPUs in the same cluster >> (which include current ARM SMP system) and the corei7 of my laptop has >> the flag at the cores level. > > So I can see 'small' parts reducing shared caches in order to improve > idle performance. > > The point being that LLC seems a somewhat arbitrary measure for this. > > Can we try and see what happens if you remove the limit. Its always best > to try the simpler things first and only make it more complex if we have > to.
ok. i will remove the condition in the next version -- 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/
