Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:55:36 -0800 | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Avoid mask based num_possible_cpus and num_online_cpus | | From | Venki Pallipadi <> |
| |
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:45 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> +int nr_online_cpus __read_mostly; >>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(nr_online_cpus); >>>> + >>>> void set_cpu_possible(unsigned int cpu, bool possible) >>>> { >>>> if (possible) >>> >>> >>> Did you forget to add: >>> >>> nr_possible_cpus = cpumask_weight(cpu_possible_mask); >>> >>> inside set_cpu_possible() ? >> >> No. That was intentional as I have that coupled with nr_cpu_ids and >> set once after all the bits are set in setup_nr_cpu_ids() instead of >> doing for each bit set. > > But, Srivatsa's way seems more safer, no? Is there any advantage to make couple > with nr_cpu_ids?
I think it is a tradeoff between safer and cleaner :). infact, that's how I had coded the patch first. But, then I changed it to be in sync with nr_cpu_ids as it seemed a bit cleaner (and also to make sure 2048 CPU guys won't come after me for doing the mask calculation 2048 times during the boot). -- 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/
|  |