lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 09/13] genapic: reduce stack pressuge in io_apic.c step 1 temp cpumask_ts
Andi Kleen wrote:
> Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com> writes:
>
>> * Step 1 of cleaning up io_apic.c removes local cpumask_t variables
>> from the stack.
>
> Sorry that patch seems incredibly messy. Global variables
> and a tricky ordering and while it's at least commented it's still a mess
> and maintenance unfriendly.
>
> Also I think set_affinity is the only case where a truly arbitary cpu
> mask can be passed in anyways. And it's passed in from elsewhere.
>
> The other cases generally just want to handle a subset of CPUs which
> are nearby. How about you define a new cpumask like type that
> consists of a start/stop CPU and a mask for that range only
> and is not larger than a few words?
>
> I think with that the nearby assignments could be handled
> reasonably cleanly with arguments and local variables.
>
> And I suspect with some restructuring set_affinity could
> be also made to support such a model.
>
> -Andi

Thanks for the comments. I did mull over something like this early on
in researching this "cpumask" problem, but the problem of having different
cpumask operators didn't seem worthwhile. But perhaps for a very limited
use (with very few ops), it would be worthwhile.

But how big to make these? Variable sized? Config option? Should I
introduce some kind of MAX_CPUS_PER_NODE constant? (NR_CPUS/MAX_NUMNODES
I don't think is the right answer.)

Thanks,
Mike


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-08 18:05    [W:0.066 / U:0.512 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site