[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Avoid mask based num_possible_cpus and num_online_cpus -v5
On 02/27/2012 02:07 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:55:55 -0800
> David Daney<> 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<>
>>> Acked-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat<>
>>> Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro<>
>> 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!

Sorry about that. I was a little hasty:

From: Venkatesh Pallipadi <>
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Cleanup raw handling of online/possible map
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:49:41 -0800
Message-Id: <>

I don't really know a better way to refer to them.

David Daney

>> 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.

It is possible that Venkatesh did not know about the breakage when the
original patch was sent

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-27 23:19    [W:0.058 / U:5.772 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site