On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 11:05 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 19/07/16 10:57, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >
> > > What about folding in something like the attached patch?
> > >
> > I'd be totally fine with this.
> Do you mean you ack me folding in that particular patch (so that the
> resulting commit
On 19/07/16 10:57, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 10:39 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Dario Faggioli
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you're saying that this discrepancy between rqd->idle's and
>>> rqd->smt_idle's semantic is, at minimum, unideal, I do agree.
On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 10:39 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Dario Faggioli
> wrote:
> >
> > If you're saying that this discrepancy between rqd->idle's and
> > rqd->smt_idle's semantic is, at minimum, unideal, I do agree... but
> > I
> > think, for now at least, it's
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Dario Faggioli
wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-07-18 at 17:48 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 15/07/16 15:50, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> >
>> > +/*
>> > + * If all the siblings of cpu (including cpu itself) are in
>> > idlers,
>> > + * set all their bits in mask.
>> > + *
>>
On Mon, 2016-07-18 at 17:48 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 15/07/16 15:50, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >
> > +/*
> > + * If all the siblings of cpu (including cpu itself) are in
> > idlers,
> > + * set all their bits in mask.
> > + *
> > + * In order to properly take into account tickling, idlers ne
On 15/07/16 15:50, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> In fact, right now, we recommend keepeing runqueues
> arranged per-core, so that it is the inter-runqueue load
> balancing code that automatically spreads the work in an
> SMT friendly way. This means that any other runq
> arrangement one may want to use f
