On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Tim Chen wrote:
> +static int sched_itmt_update_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
> + void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
Please align the arguments proper
static int
sched_itmt_update_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, loff_t *ppos)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + unsigned int old_sysctl;
unsigned int old_sysctl;
int ret;
Please. It's way simpler to read.
> -void sched_set_itmt_support(void)
> +int sched_set_itmt_support(void)
> {
> mutex_lock(&itmt_update_mutex);
>
> + if (sched_itmt_capable) {
> + mutex_unlock(&itmt_update_mutex);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + itmt_sysctl_header = register_sysctl_table(itmt_root_table);
> + if (!itmt_sysctl_header) {
> + mutex_unlock(&itmt_update_mutex);
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> +
> sched_itmt_capable = true;
>
> + /*
> + * ITMT capability automatically enables ITMT
> + * scheduling for small systems (single node).
> + */
> + if (topology_num_packages() == 1)
> + sysctl_sched_itmt_enabled = 1;
I really hate this. This is policy and the kernel should not impose
policy. Why would I like to have this enforced on my single socket XEON
server?
> + if (sysctl_sched_itmt_enabled) {
Why would sysctl_sched_itmt_enabled be true at this point, aside of the
above policy imposement?
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
