lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] rseq.2: New man page for the rseq(2) API
From
On 2023-02-15 12:09, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> On 2023-02-14 20:20, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
[...]
>>
>>>> +user-space performs any side-effect
>>>> +(e.g. storing to memory).
>>>> +.IP
>>>> +This field is always guaranteed to hold a valid CPU number in the
>>>> range
>>>> +[ 0 ..  nr_possible_cpus - 1 ].
>>>
>>> Please use interval notation:
>>>     [0, nr_possible_cpus)
>>> or
>>>     [0, nr_possible_cpus - 1]
>>> whichever looks better to you.
>>>
>>> We did some consistency fix recently:
>>> <https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git/commit/?id=147a60d792a5db8f3cb93ea16eefb73e16c1fb91>
>>>
>>> Also, do we have a more standard way of saying nr_possible_cpus?
>>> Should we say nproc?
>
> nproc(1) means:
>
>        Print  the number of processing units available to the current
>        process, which may be less than the number of online processors
>
> Which is the number of cpus currently available (AFAIU the result of the
> cpuset and sched affinity).
>
> What I really mean here is the maximum value for possible cpus which can
> be hotplugged into the system. So it's not the maximum number of
> possible CPUs per se, but rather the maximum enabled bit in the possible
> CPUs mask.
>
> Note that we could express this differently as well: rather than saying
> that it guarantees a value in the range [0, nr_possible_cpus - 1], we
> could say that the values are guaranteed to be part of the possible cpus
> mask, which would actually more accurate in case the possible cpus mask
> has a hole (it tends to happen with things like lxc containers nowadays).
>
> Do you agree that we should favor expressing this in terms of belonging
> to the possible cpumask set rather than a range starting from 0 ?

Actually, the field may contain the value 0 even if 0 is not part of the
possible cpumask. So forget what I just said about being guaranteed to
be part of the possible cpus mask.

Thoughts ?

Thanks,

Mathieu

>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-27 00:24    [W:0.072 / U:0.728 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site