kernel/linux.git/include/linux/sched/sd_flags.h, branch v6.12.80

sched/topology: Rename SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES to SD_SHARE_LLC

2024-02-28T14:43:17+00:00

SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES is a bit of a misnomer: its naming suggests that it's sharing all 'package resources' - while in reality it's specifically for sharing the LLC only. Rename it to SD_SHARE_LLC to reduce confusion. [ mingo: Rewrote the confusing changelog as well. ] Suggested-by: Valentin Schneider Signed-off-by: Alex Shi Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider Reviewed-by: Ricardo Neri Reviewed-by: Barry Song Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240210113924.1130448-5-alexs@kernel.org

sched: Add cpus_share_resources API

2023-10-24T08:38:42+00:00

Add cpus_share_resources() API. This is the preparation for the optimization of select_idle_cpu() on platforms with cluster scheduler level. On a machine with clusters cpus_share_resources() will test whether two cpus are within the same cluster. On a non-cluster machine it will behaves the same as cpus_share_cache(). So we use "resources" here for cache resources. Signed-off-by: Barry Song Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Reviewed-by: Gautham R. Shenoy Reviewed-by: Tim Chen Reviewed-by: Vincent Guittot Tested-and-reviewed-by: Chen Yu Tested-by: K Prateek Nayak Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20231019033323.54147-2-yangyicong@huawei.com

sched/topology: Remove SHARED_CHILD from ASYM_PACKING

2023-05-08T08:58:37+00:00

Only x86 and Power7 use ASYM_PACKING. They use it differently. Power7 has cores of equal priority, but the SMT siblings of a core have different priorities. Parent scheduling domains do not need (nor have) the ASYM_PACKING flag. SHARED_CHILD is not needed. Using SHARED_PARENT would cause the topology debug code to complain. X86 has cores of different priority, but all the SMT siblings of the core have equal priority. It needs ASYM_PACKING at the MC level, but not at the SMT level (it also needs it at upper levels if they have scheduling groups of different priority). Removing ASYM_PACKING from the SMT domain causes the topology debug code to complain. Remove SHARED_CHILD for now. We still need a topology check that satisfies both architectures. Suggested-by: Valentin Schneider Signed-off-by: Ricardo Neri Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Tested-by: Zhang Rui Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230406203148.19182-10-ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com

sched/core: Introduce SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL sched_domain flag

2021-06-24T07:07:50+00:00

Introducing new, complementary to SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY, sched_domain topology flag, to distinguish between shed_domains where any CPU capacity asymmetry is detected (SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY) and ones where a full set of CPU capacities is visible to all domain members (SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL). With the distinction between full and partial CPU capacity asymmetry, brought in by the newly introduced flag, the scope of the original SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY flag gets shifted, still maintaining the existing behaviour when one is detected on a given sched domain, allowing misfit migrations within sched domains that do not observe full range of CPU capacities but still do have members with different capacity values. It loses though it's meaning when it comes to the lowest CPU asymmetry sched_domain level per-cpu pointer, which is to be now denoted by SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY_FULL flag. Signed-off-by: Beata Michalska Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210603140627.8409-2-beata.michalska@arm.com

sched/topology: Mark SD_NUMA as SDF_NEEDS_GROUPS

2020-08-19T08:49:50+00:00

There would be no point in preserving a sched_domain with a single group just because it has this flag set. Add it to SD_DEGENERATE_GROUPS_MASK. Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200817113003.20802-17-valentin.schneider@arm.com

sched/topology: Mark SD_OVERLAP as SDF_NEEDS_GROUPS

2020-08-19T08:49:50+00:00

A sched_domain can only have overlapping sched_groups if it has more than one group. Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200817113003.20802-16-valentin.schneider@arm.com

sched/topology: Mark SD_ASYM_PACKING as SDF_NEEDS_GROUPS

2020-08-19T08:49:49+00:00

Being a load-balancing flag, it requires 2+ groups to have any effect. Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200817113003.20802-15-valentin.schneider@arm.com

sched/topology: Mark SD_SERIALIZE as SDF_NEEDS_GROUPS

2020-08-19T08:49:49+00:00

sched/topology: Mark SD_BALANCE_WAKE as SDF_NEEDS_GROUPS

2020-08-19T08:49:49+00:00

Even if no mainline topology uses this flag, it is a load balancing flag just like SD_BALANCE_FORK and requires 2+ groups to have any effect. Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200817113003.20802-13-valentin.schneider@arm.com

sched/topology: Mark SD_PREFER_SIBLING as SDF_NEEDS_GROUPS

2020-08-19T08:49:49+00:00

SD_PREFER_SIBLING is currently considered in sd_parent_degenerate() but not in sd_degenerate(). It too hinges on load balancing, and thus won't have any effect when set on a domain with a single group. Add it to SD_DEGENERATE_GROUPS_MASK. Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200817113003.20802-12-valentin.schneider@arm.com