* Peter Zijlstra [2021-05-28 10:43:23]:
> On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 09:48:29PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Valentin Schneider [2021-05-24 15:16:09]:
>
> > > I suppose one way to avoid the hook would be to write some "fake" distance
> > > values into your distance_lookup_table[] for offl
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 09:48:29PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Valentin Schneider [2021-05-24 15:16:09]:
> > I suppose one way to avoid the hook would be to write some "fake" distance
> > values into your distance_lookup_table[] for offline nodes using your
> > distance_ref_point_depth th
* Valentin Schneider [2021-05-25 11:21:02]:
> On 24/05/21 21:48, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Valentin Schneider [2021-05-24 15:16:09]:
> >> Ok so from your arch you can figure out the *size* of the set of unique
> >> distances, but not the individual node_distance(a, b)... That's quite
> >> u
* Valentin Schneider [2021-05-25 11:21:02]:
> On 24/05/21 21:48, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Valentin Schneider [2021-05-24 15:16:09]:
> >> Ok so from your arch you can figure out the *size* of the set of unique
> >> distances, but not the individual node_distance(a, b)... That's quite
> >> u
On 24/05/21 21:48, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Valentin Schneider [2021-05-24 15:16:09]:
>> Ok so from your arch you can figure out the *size* of the set of unique
>> distances, but not the individual node_distance(a, b)... That's quite
>> unfortunate.
>
> Yes, thats true.
>
>>
>> I suppose one w
* Valentin Schneider [2021-05-24 15:16:09]:
> On 21/05/21 14:58, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra [2021-05-21 10:14:10]:
> >
> >> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 08:08:02AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >> > * Peter Zijlstra [2021-05-20 20:56:31]:
> >> >
> >> > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 a
On 21/05/21 14:58, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra [2021-05-21 10:14:10]:
>
>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 08:08:02AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>> > * Peter Zijlstra [2021-05-20 20:56:31]:
>> >
>> > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 09:14:25PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>> > > > Curren
* Peter Zijlstra [2021-05-21 10:14:10]:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 08:08:02AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra [2021-05-20 20:56:31]:
> >
> > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 09:14:25PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > > Currently scheduler populates the distance map by looking
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 08:08:02AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra [2021-05-20 20:56:31]:
>
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 09:14:25PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > Currently scheduler populates the distance map by looking at distance
> > > of each node from all other nodes
* Peter Zijlstra [2021-05-20 20:56:31]:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 09:14:25PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > Currently scheduler populates the distance map by looking at distance
> > of each node from all other nodes. This should work for most
> > architectures and platforms.
> >
> > However
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 09:14:25PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> Currently scheduler populates the distance map by looking at distance
> of each node from all other nodes. This should work for most
> architectures and platforms.
>
> However there are some architectures like POWER that may not
Currently scheduler populates the distance map by looking at distance
of each node from all other nodes. This should work for most
architectures and platforms.
However there are some architectures like POWER that may not expose
the distance of nodes that are not yet onlined because those resources
12 matches
Mail list logo
