Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:30:58 +0400 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] make schedule_on_each_cpu() look like on_each_cpu() |
| |
On 07/26, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > On 07/26, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > -int schedule_on_each_cpu(work_func_t func) > > +int schedule_on_each_cpu(void (*func)(void *info), void *info, int retry, int wait) > > { > > int cpu; > > - struct work_struct *works; > > + struct schedule_on_each_cpu_work **works; > > + int err = 0; > > > > - works = alloc_percpu(struct work_struct); > > + works = kzalloc(sizeof(void *)*nr_cpu_ids, GFP_KERNEL); > > Not a comment, but a question: why do we need nr_cpu_ids at all? > num_possible_cpus() looks more "correct" if cpu_possible_map has > holes (not sure this can happen in practice).
OOPS, I am stupid, please ignore. Of course, we need the highest CPU number, not num_possible_cpus().
Oleg.
- 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/
| |