"Siddha, Suresh B" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps we should just make SMT and MC disjoint in Kconfig. Your call.
>
> No. SMT and MC are not disjoint.
It's still not clear what's supposed to be happening here.
In build_sched_domains() we still have code which does:
for_each_cpu_mask(...) {
...
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_MC
...
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
...
#endif
...
}
...
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_SMT
...
#endif
...
#ifdef CONFIG_SCHED_MC
...
#endif
So in the first case the SCHED_SMT code will win and in the second case the
SCHED_MC code will win. I think. The code is so repetitive in there that
`patch' may have put the hunks in the wrong place.
What is the design intention here? What do we _want_ to happen if both MC
and SMT are enabled?
Also the path tests CONFIG_SCHED_MT in a few places where it meant to use
CONFIG_SCHED_SMT, which rather casts doubt upon the testing quality.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
