[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080326170950.GB20016@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:09:50 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"William L. Irwin" <wli@...omorphy.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] init: move setup of nr_cpu_ids to as early as
possible v2
* Mike Travis <travis@....com> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Mike Travis <travis@....com> wrote:
> >
> >> Move the setting of nr_cpu_ids from sched_init() to
> >> setup_per_cpu_areas(), so that it's available as early as possible.
> >
> > hm, why not a separate call before setup_per_cpu_areas(), so that we can
> > avoid spreading this from generic kernel into a bunch of architectures
> > that happen to have their own version of setup_per_cpu_areas():
> >
> >> 7 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > Ingo
>
> I had this before but I then discovered that an arch would increase
> (and possible decrease) it's number of possible cpus in
> setup_per_cpu_areas(). So I figured that setting nr_cpu_ids (and the
> cpumask_of_cpu map) should be a side effect of setup_per_cpu_areas().
well, then why not do it shortly after setup_per_cpu_areas()? That still
moves it earlier than sched_init() but doesnt export all this code and
complexity toevery setup_per_cpu_areas() implementation. (which clearly
didnt need this complexity before)
Ingo
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists