From c20e1ea4b61c3d99a354d912f2d74822fd2a001d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Lauro Ramos Venancio Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 16:51:42 -0300 Subject: [PATCH] sched/topology: Move comment about asymmetric node setups Signed-off-by: Lauro Ramos Venancio Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: Linus Torvalds Cc: Mike Galbraith Cc: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Thomas Gleixner Cc: lwang@redhat.com Cc: riel@redhat.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1492717903-5195-4-git-send-email-lvenanci@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- kernel/sched/topology.c | 19 ++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/sched/topology.c b/kernel/sched/topology.c index 5a4d9aeda258..c10f44a1ab2d 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/topology.c +++ b/kernel/sched/topology.c @@ -495,14 +495,6 @@ enum s_alloc { /* * Build an iteration mask that can exclude certain CPUs from the upwards * domain traversal. - * - * Asymmetric node setups can result in situations where the domain tree is of - * unequal depth, make sure to skip domains that already cover the entire - * range. - * - * In that case build_sched_domains() will have terminated the iteration early - * and our sibling sd spans will be empty. Domains should always include the - * CPU they're built on, so check that. */ static void build_group_mask(struct sched_domain *sd, struct sched_group *sg) { @@ -590,7 +582,16 @@ build_overlap_sched_groups(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu) sibling = *per_cpu_ptr(sdd->sd, i); - /* See the comment near build_group_mask(). */ + /* + * Asymmetric node setups can result in situations where the + * domain tree is of unequal depth, make sure to skip domains + * that already cover the entire range. + * + * In that case build_sched_domains() will have terminated the + * iteration early and our sibling sd spans will be empty. + * Domains should always include the CPU they're built on, so + * check that. + */ if (!cpumask_test_cpu(i, sched_domain_span(sibling))) continue; -- 2.30.2