lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 4/5] slub: Only IPI CPUs that have per cpu obj to flush
On 01/02/2012 01:59 PM, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 01/01/2012 06:12 PM, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Since this seems to be a common pattern, how about:
> >> >
> >> > zalloc_cpumask_var_or_all_online_cpus(&cpus, GFTP_ATOMIC);
> >> > ...
> >> > free_cpumask_var(cpus);
> >> >
> >> > The long-named function at the top of the block either returns a newly
> >> > allocated zeroed cpumask, or a static cpumask with all online cpus set.
> >> > The code in the middle is only allowed to set bits in the cpumask
> >> > (should be the common usage). free_cpumask_var() needs to check whether
> >> > the freed object is the static variable.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the feedback and advice! I totally agree the repeating
> >> pattern needs abstracting.
> >>
> >> I ended up chosing to try a different abstraction though - basically a wrapper
> >> on_each_cpu_cond that gets a predicate function to run per CPU to
> >> build the mask
> >> to send the IPI to. It seems cleaner to me not having to mess with
> >> free_cpumask_var
> >> and it abstracts more of the general pattern.
> >>
> >
> > This converts the algorithm to O(NR_CPUS) from a potentially lower
> > complexity algorithm. Also, the existing algorithm may not like to be
> > driven by cpu number. Both are true for kvm.
> >
>
> Right, I was only thinking on my own uses, which are O(NR_CPUS) by nature.
>
> I wonder if it would be better to create a safe_cpumask_var type with
> its own alloc function
> free and and sset_cpu function but no clear_cpu function so that the
> compiler will catch
> cases of trying to clear bits off of such a cpumask?
>
> It seems safer and also makes handling the free function easier.
>
> Does that makes sense or am I over engineering it? :-)

It makes sense. Depends on the number of call sites, really. If there
are several, consolidation helps, also makes it easier to further refactor.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-02 14:33    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site