On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 10:38:45AM +0530, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote: ... > > I had thought this was a malfunction in the behavior that it reflected the > > current status, not the hardware /capability/. > > > > Which one makes more sense for userspace? In my mind the most likely > > consumer of this information would be something a sched_ext based userspace > > scheduler. They would need to know whether the scheduler was using > > preferred cores; not whether the hardware supported it. > > The commandline parameter currently impacts only the fair sched-class > tasks since the preference information gets used only during > load-balancing. > > IMO, the same should continue with sched-ext, i.e. if the user has > explicitly disabled prefcore support via commandline, the no sched-ext > scheduler should use the preference information to make task placement > decisions. However, I would like to see what the sched-ext folks have > to say. Adding some of them to the Cc list. IMHO it makes more sense to reflect the real state of prefcore support from a "system" perspective, more than a "hardware" perspective, so if it's disabled via boot command line it should show disabled.
