On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 8:50 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 04:22:46PM -0700, Tim Chen wrote: > > On Fri, 2021-10-01 at 16:57 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > The one questino I have is, do we want default y? > > > > I also agree that default y is preferable. > > I'll change at least the x86 one to: > > default y > depends on SMP > > > > The one nit I have is the Kconfig text, I'm not really sure that's > > > clarifying what a cluster is. > > > > Do you have a preference of a different name other than cluster? > > Or simply better documentation on what a cluster is for ARM64 > > and x86 in Kconfig? > > Yes, better wording as to what a cluster is. Currently the x86 and arm64 > ones actually differ: > > x86: > help > Cluster scheduler support improves the CPU scheduler's decision > making when dealing with machines that have clusters of CPUs > sharing L2 cache. If unsure say N here. > > arm64: > help > Cluster scheduler support improves the CPU scheduler's decision > making when dealing with machines that have clusters(sharing internal > bus or sharing LLC cache tag). If unsure say N here. > > > (also, all this stuff being replicated across arch/*/Kconfig seems > unfortunate) perhaps worth a separate patchset to do some cleanup so that SCHED_MC, SCHED_SMT etc won't be replicated in different architectures. Right now, this kind of Kconfig option is copied everywhere. I am seeing SCHED_SMT in all of arch/arm/Kconfig arch/arm64/Kconfig arch/ia64/Kconfig arch/mips/Kconfig arch/powerpc/Kconfig arch/s390/Kconfig arch/sparc/Kconfig arch/x86/Kconfig ... Is it a better way to move them to a common Kconfig and let the architectures to declare things like ARCH_HAVE_SMT? Thanks Barry
