linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] make schedule_on_each_cpu() look like on_each

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070726182727.GA173@tv-sign.ru>
Date:	Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:27:27 +0400
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make schedule_on_each_cpu() look like on_each_cpu()

On 07/26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> -int schedule_on_each_cpu(work_func_t func)
> +int schedule_on_each_cpu(void (*func)(void *info), void *info, int retry, int wait)
>  {
>  	int cpu;
> -	struct work_struct *works;
> +	struct schedule_on_each_cpu_work **works;
> +	int err = 0;
>  
> -	works = alloc_percpu(struct work_struct);
> +	works = kzalloc(sizeof(void *)*nr_cpu_ids, GFP_KERNEL);

Not a comment, but a question: why do we need nr_cpu_ids at all?
num_possible_cpus() looks more "correct" if cpu_possible_map has
holes (not sure this can happen in practice).

Another off-topic question: shouldn't we kill the unused "retry"
parameter of on_each_cpu() instead of mirroring it here?

> +out:
> +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> +		if (works[cpu])
> +			kfree(works[cpu]);
> +	}

Small nit, kfree(NULL) is OK.

Oleg.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/