lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Avoid mask based num_possible_cpus and num_online_cpus -v5
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:55:55 -0800
David Daney <ddaney.cavm@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/31/2012 04:17 PM, Venkatesh Pallipadi wrote:
> > Kernel's notion of possible cpus (from include/linux/cpumask.h)
> > * cpu_possible_mask- has bit 'cpu' set iff cpu is populatable
> >
> > * The cpu_possible_mask is fixed at boot time, as the set of CPU id's
> > * that it is possible might ever be plugged in at anytime during the
> > * life of that system boot.
> >
> > #define num_possible_cpus() cpumask_weight(cpu_possible_mask)
> >
> > and on x86 cpumask_weight() calls hweight64 and hweight64 (on older kernels
> > and systems with !X86_FEATURE_POPCNT) or a popcnt based alternative.
> >
> > i.e, We needlessly go through this mask based calculation everytime
> > num_possible_cpus() is called.
> >
> > The problem is there with cpu_online_mask() as well, which is fixed value at
> > boot time in !CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU case and should not change that often even
> > in HOTPLUG case.
> >
> > Though most of the callers of these two routines are init time (with few
> > exceptions of runtime calls), it is cleaner to use variables
> > and not go through this repeated mask based calculation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Venkatesh Pallipadi<venki@google.com>
> > Acked-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat<srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro<kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
>
> How is it that this patch got merged to linux-next before all the
> cleanup patches for nr_online_cpus?

<spends five minutes searching mailing list archives>

I for one do not have a clue what patches the term "cleanup patches for
nr_online_cpus" refers to. Patches have names - please use them!

> From the looks of your follow-on patches it would seem that all MIPS,
> hexagon, and um are now broken.
>
> I know for a fact that MIPS doesn't boot because of this.

I shall drop
cpumask-avoid-mask-based-num_possible_cpus-and-num_online_cpus.patch.

That patch was sent as a single standalone patch and the changelog had
no mention of any needed preparatory patches. If resending, please
send *all* patches in a single sequence-numbered series. We know how
to do this.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-27 23:09    [W:0.107 / U:31.628 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site