On Wed, 26 Oct 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:49:36PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > + /* > > > + * 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? > > So this really wants to be enabled by default; otherwise nobody will use > this, and it really does help single threaded workloads. Fair enough. Then this wants to be documented. > There were reservations on the multi-socket case of ITMT, maybe it would > help to spell those out in great detail here. That is, have the comment > explain the policy instead of simply stating what the code does (which > is always bad comment policy, you can read the code just fine). What is the objection for multi sockets? If it improves the behaviour then why would this be a bad thing for multi sockets? 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
