Hello Naman,
On 3/7/2025 8:35 PM, Naman Jain wrote:
On 3/6/2025 10:18 PM, Valentin Schneider wrote:
On 06/03/25 11:23, Naman Jain wrote:
diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c
index c49aea8c1025..666f0a18cc6c 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
@@ -2359,6 +2359,13 @@ static bool topology_span_sane(struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl,
{
int i = cpu + 1;
+ /* Skip the topology sanity check for non-debug, as it is a time-consuming operation */
+ if (!sched_debug()) {
+ pr_info_once("%s: Skipping topology span sanity check. Use `sched_verbose` boot parameter to enable it.\n",
+ __func__);
FWIW I'm not against this change, however if you want to add messaging
about sched_verbose I'd put that in e.g. sched_domain_debug() (as a print
once like you've done here) with something along the lines of:
"Scheduler topology debugging disabled, add 'sched_verbose' to the cmdline to enable it"
Thank you so much for reviewing.
Please correct me if I misunderstood. Are you proposing below change?
--- a/kernel/sched/topology.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c
@@ -2361,7 +2361,7 @@ static bool topology_span_sane(struct sched_domain_topology_level *tl,
/* Skip the topology sanity check for non-debug, as it is a time-consuming operation */
if (!sched_debug()) {
- pr_info_once("%s: Skipping topology span sanity check. Use `sched_verbose` boot parameter to enable it.\n",
+ pr_info_once("%s: Scheduler topology debugging disabled, add 'sched_verbose' to the cmdline to enable it\n",
__func__);
return true;
}
I think Valentin meant moving the same pr_info_once() to the early exit
case in sched_domain_debug() for "!sched_debug_verbose" to notify the
user that sched_debug() is disabled and they can turn it on using
"sched_verbose" as opposed to announcing it from topology_span_sane().
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
Regards,
Naman
+ return true;
+ }
+
/* NUMA levels are allowed to overlap */
if (tl->flags & SDTL_OVERLAP)
return true;
--
2.34.1
