[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] quicklist shouldn't be proportional to # of CPUs
David Miller wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <>
> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:46:15 -0700
>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:08:13 +0900 KOSAKI Motohiro <> wrote:
>>> + num_cpus_per_node = cpus_weight_nr(node_to_cpumask(node));

I think the more correct usage would be:

node_to_cpumask_ptr(v, node);
num_cpus_per_node = cpus_weight_nr(*v);
max /= num_cpus_per_node;

return max(max, min_pages);

which should load 'v' with a pointer to the node_to_cpumask_map[node] entry
[and avoid using stack space for the cpumask_t variable for those arch's
that define a node_to_cpumask_map (or similar).] Otherwise a local cpumask_t
variable '_v' is created to which 'v' is pointing to and thus can be used
directly as an arg to the cpu_xxx ops.


>> sparc64 allmodconfig:
>> mm/quicklist.c: In function `max_pages':
>> mm/quicklist.c:44: error: invalid lvalue in unary `&'
>> we seem to have a made a spectacular mess of cpumasks lately.
> It should explode similarly on x86, since it also defines node_to_cpumask()
> as an inline function.
> IA64 seems to be one of the few platforms to define this as a macro
> evaluating to the node-to-cpumask array entry, so it's clear what
> platform Motohiro-san did build testing on :-)
> --
> 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: 2008-08-25 20:43    [W:0.092 / U:42.388 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site