On 19 March 2014 16:22, Dietmar Eggemann dietmar.eggemann@arm.com wrote:
On 19/03/14 13:33, Vincent Guittot wrote: [...]
Is there a way to check that MC and GMC have to have SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES set so that this can't happen unnoticed?
So from the core codes perspective those names mean less than nothing. Its just a string to carry along for us meat-bags. The string isn't even there when !SCHED_DEBUG.
So from this codes POV you told it it had a domain without PKGSHARE, that's fine.
That said; yeah the thing isn't the prettiest piece of code. But it has the big advantage of being the one place where we convert topology into behaviour.
We might add a check of the child in sd_init to ensure that the child has at least some properties of the current level. I mean that if a level has got the SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES flag, its child must also have it. The same for SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER and SD_ASYM_PACKING.
so we can add something like the below in sd_init
child_flags = SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES | SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER | SD_ASYM_PACKING flags = sd->flags & child_flags if (sd->child) child_flags &= sd->child->flags child_flags &= flags if (flags != child_flags) pr_info("The topology description looks strange \n");
I tried it with my faulty set-up on TC2 and I get the info message for the GMC level for all CPU's in sd_init.
I had to pass an 'struct sched_domain *child' pointer into sd_init() from build_sched_domain() because inside sd_init() sd->child is always NULL.
ah yes... the child is set after the call to sd_init so we don't have access to the child
So one of the requirements of this approach is that a child level like GMC (which could potentially replace its parent level or otherwise is destroyed itself) has to specify all flags of its parent level (MC)?
yes among the 3 flags that i mention because we have simple parent/child relation for this 3 flags
What about SD_NUMA in child_flags? SD_ASYM_PACKING is also a little bit
SD_NUMA doesn't follow the same rule
different than SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES or SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER because it's not used in the if ... else statement.
It's not a matter of being in a if else statement but more a topology dependency.
But I'm afraid this only works for this specific case of the MC/GMC
This also works if a level with SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER flag is declared in the table after a level without the flag which doesn't make sense AFAIK.
layer and is not scalable. If sd->child is a level for which you don't want to potentially destroy itself or its parent, then you would get false alarms. IMHO, sd_init() has no information for which pair of adjacent levels it should apply this check and for which not. Do I miss something here?
This check could apply on all level.
Vincent
-- Dietmar
Vincent