[Lse-tech] Re: [RFC PATCH] scheduler: Dynamic sched_domains

[Matthew D. <col...@us...>]

On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 19:13, Nick Piggin wrote:
> This is what I did in my first (that nobody ever saw) implementation of
> sched domains. Ie. no sched_groups, just use sched_domains as the balancing
> object... I'm not sure this works too well.
> 
> For example, your bottom level domain is going to basically be a redundant,
> single CPU on most topologies, isn't it?

I forgot to respond to this part in my last mail... :(

My benchmarks haven't shown any real deviation in performance from stock
-mm.  Granted, my benchmarking has been very limited, pretty much just
running kernbench on a few different machines with different configs
(ie: SMT, SMP & NUMA on/off).  A performance NOOP is exactly what I was
hoping for, though.  I don't really expect these changes to be either a
performance win or loss, but a functionality improvement.

The patch is pretty dense because of all the renaming, but there are no
single CPU domains.  The lowest level domain would be:

1) Node domains, for NUMA w/ SMP
2) Sibling domains, for SMT or NUMA w/ SMT
3) System domain, for flat SMP

The pseudo code version of my arch_init_sched_domains() looks like:

cpu_usable_map = cpu_online_map & ~cpu_isolated_map
create system domain;
if NUMA
	for_each_node()
		create node domain, parented to system domain;
for_each_cpu(cpu_usable_map)
	if SCHED_SMT
		create sibling domain, parented to node domain;
		attach sibling cpu to it's domain;
	else
		attach cpu to either its node domain or system domain;

So there shouldn't be any redundant CPU domains.

-Matt