![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
You should double check my logic, but I think a couple of the cpumask
calculations can be tightened up, as follows.
Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com> wrote:
>
> + cpumask_t cpu_nonisolated;
> +
> + cpus_and(cpu_nonisolated, cpu_possible_map, isol_cpumask);
> + cpus_complement(cpu_nonisolated, cpu_nonisolated);
> + cpus_and(cpu_nonisolated, cpu_nonisolated, cpu_possible_map);
cpumask_t cpu_nonisolated;
cpus_andnot(cpu_nonisolated, cpu_possible_map, isol_cpumas);
> + cpumask_t tmp = node_to_cpumask(i);
> + cpumask_t nodemask;
> + ...
> + cpus_and(nodemask, tmp, cpu_nonisolated);
cpumask_t nodemask;
...
cpus_and(nodemask, node_to_cpumask(i), cpu_nonisolated);
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:04 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||