On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 12:57:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 10:34:53AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 10:04:24PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
I'm having a really hard time seeing this as anything other than a step back. Your change causes us to discard the higher affinity levels which seems like something we actively know to be misleading and means that we will be handing the scheduler two different identically numbered cores (all the affinity levels we do pay attention to will be identical) if we ever encounter such a system which is actively broken.
If we ever encounter such systems we will deal with them when time comes, DT can handle them and patching this code is trivial.
All I am saying is, let's wait and see, there is no compelling need to use aff3 (and aff2 on non-SMT systems) on current systems for the topology.
That's still a kernel patch or having to write DT to get things working which for the sake of avoiding a couple of shift and or statements just seems unhelpful. If it was just going to give poor performance that'd be one thing but it's actively broken.
What's broken ? Please provide me with an example and I will update the patch.
Lorenzo