[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] CPUMASK: proposal for replacing cpumask_t
Mike Travis wrote:
> Here's the thread:
> It doesn't seem worthwhile to force all systems to deal with large cpumask's
> if they don't need to. Passing the value on the stack (actually usually in a
> reg) if it fits into a long makes a lot of sense.
> And I don't think it's that abstract, but I'm willing to hear other opinions.
> Btw, most likely only distros that distribute an "Enterprise" edition of
> Linux will ever set NR_CPUS so high, so the actual number of systems making
> use of this will be a very small percentage (big $$-wise though... ;-)
> I even think that perhaps BITS_PER_LONG might be too low a threshold to kick
> in this extra code. A Larabee chip will have 128 cpus so maybe 128 or 256 is
> a better metric...?
> As soon as I get a working kernel with the proposed changes, I will definitely
> be doing perf testing.

If the performance difference isn't significant, then there is a major
advantage to getting rid of a configuration option. At that point we
can basically scale to an arbitrary number of processors in a stock


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-13 01:09    [W:0.056 / U:1.656 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site