[lkml]   [2002]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.5.21 Nonlinear CPU support
In message <> you write:
> From: Rusty Russell <>
> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 19:09:44 +1000
> In message <> you write:
> > and slowdown:
> ARGH! STOP IT! I realize it's 'leet to be continually worrying about
> possible microoptimizations, but I challenge you to *measure* the
> slowdown between:
> Regardless, his space arguments still hold.

You can allocate based on cpu_possible(cpu) (which is in the
next patch) if you like, but I think you're better off fixing the
existing NR_CPUS bloat as well, and keeping all the code simple.

> I don't like having everyone eat the overhead that hotplugging cpus
> seem to entail.

But there's an important difference between something which is
simple and unoptimized, and something which is unoptimizable.

> And remember, it's the anal "every microoptimization at all costs"
> people that keep the kernel sane and from running out of control bloat
> wise.

But it also gave us crap like net/ipv4/route.c:ip_rt_acct_read() 8(

I know *you* benchmark and read the asm during optimization, but it's
quite clear that others are so scared of "bloat" criticism that they
optimize without measuring the straightforward case *first*.

Remember, to be cool:
1) Use bitops and memory barriers not spinlocks,
2) Use inlines everywhere,
3) Use likely()/unlikely() on every branch
4) Use prefetch() everywhere,
5) Use gotos to minimize the path length
6) __set_current_state() not set_current_state()
7) Pass in current as a function param

Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.
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 13:22    [W:0.143 / U:0.948 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site