On 25/05/2021 11:30, Beata Michalska wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 10:25:36AM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> On 24/05/2021 12:16, Beata Michalska wrote:
[...]
>>> @@ -1266,6 +1266,112 @@ static void init_sched_groups_capacity(int cpu, struct sched_domain *sd)
>>> update_group_capacity(sd, cpu);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/**
>>> + * Asymmetric CPU capacity bits
>>> + */
>>> +struct asym_cap_data {
>>> + struct list_head link;
>>> + unsigned long capacity;
>>> + struct cpumask *cpu_mask;
>>
>> Not sure if this has been discussed already but shouldn't the flexible
>> array members` approach known from struct sched_group, struct
>> sched_domain or struct em_perf_domain be used here?
>> IIRC the last time this has been discussed in this thread:
>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200910054203.525420-2-aubrey.li@xxxxxxxxx
>>
> If I got right the discussion you have pointed to, it was about using
> cpumask_var_t which is not the case here. I do not mind moving the code
> to use the array but I am not sure if this changes much. Looking at the
> code changes to support that (to_cpumask namely) it was introduced for
> cases where cpumask_var_t was not appropriate, which again isn't the case
> here.
Yeah, it was more about using `flexible array members` or allocating the
cpumask separately.
Looks like you're using some kind of a mixed approach:
(1) struct asym_cap_data {
...
struct cpumask *cpu_mask;
(2) entry = kzalloc(sizeof(*entry) + cpumask_size(), GFP_KERNEL);
(3) entry->cpu_mask = (struct cpumask *)((char *)entry +
sizeof(*entry));
(4) cpumask_intersects(foo, entry->cpu_mask)
E.g. struct em_perf_domain has
(1) struct em_perf_domain {
...
unsigned long cpus[];
(2) like yours
(3) is not needed.
(4) cpumask_copy(em_span_cpus(pd), foo)
with #define em_span_cpus(em) (to_cpumask((em)->cpus))
IMHO, it's better to keep this approach aligned between the different
data structures.
