Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:40:16 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: tip: demise of tsk_cpus_allowed() and tsk_nr_cpus_allowed() |
| |
On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:20:19AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 6 Feb 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > > > cpumasks are a pain, the above avoids allocating more of them. > > Indeed. > > > Yeah, so this could then be done by pointerifying ->cpus_allowed - more robust > > than the wrappery, > > You mean: > > struct task_struct { > cpumask_t cpus_allowed; > cpumask_t *effective_cpus_allowed; > }; > > and make the scheduler use effective_cpus_allowed instead of cpus_allowed? > Or what do you have in mind?
That scheme is weird for nr_cpus_allowed. Not to mention that the pointer to the integer is larger than the integer itself.
I really prefer the current wrappers, they're trivial and consistent with one another.
| |