[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fix CPU bitmask truncation
On Friday 20 December 2002 4:15 am, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Actually, this looks like a non-issue from userspace on the IA64 boxen
> I can get to. akpm pointed out that this seemed to pass his testing,
> and on deeper inspection, IA64 userspace did not find this to be an issue.
> Bjorn, could you explain on what toolchains and/or architectures you had
> this issue? It sounds serious and/or real enough yet I can't actually
> make this happen myself.

This was an issue with gcc 2.96 on a 64-way IA64 box. I don't have
access to one at the moment, but as I remember, without the 2.4 changes:

- ((p)->cpus_runnable & (p)->cpus_allowed & (1 << cpu))
+ ((p)->cpus_runnable & (p)->cpus_allowed & (1UL << cpu))

nothing would get scheduled on CPUs 32-63. I guess those changes
aren't controversial, though.

The question of whether this was strictly necessary:

- cpus_runnable: -1, \
- cpus_allowed: -1, \
+ cpus_runnable: ~0UL, \
+ cpus_allowed: ~0UL, \

I don't specifically recall, and a quick test suggests that it really
doesn't matter. Since cpus_runnable and cpus_allowed are declared
unsigned long, I think ~0UL is a more direct expression of what is
desired, but maybe that's just a personal preference.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:31    [W:0.101 / U:5.128 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site