[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <36ca99e90803290159v33ab43cbu5acd4bc2b0cd0262@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:59:26 +0100
From: "Bert Wesarg" <bert.wesarg@...glemail.com>
To: "Mike Travis" <travis@....com>
Cc: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: modify show_shared_cpu_map in intel_cacheinfo
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Mike Travis <travis@....com> wrote:
> > Aren't the most cpumaps (like cpu/cpu*/topology/*_siblings or
> > node/node*/cpumap) bitmasks?
>
> I did an informal survey and you are right, the majority of references do use
> cpumask_scnprintf instead of cpulist_scnprintf. Maybe the later function was
> added later?
>
> To me though, it would seem that:
>
> 240-255
>
> is more readable than:
>
> 00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,0000ffff
>
> And as I mentioned, bitmask_parselist() [libbitmask(3)] does parse the output.
But libbitmask has a bitmask_parsehex() too. (but thanks for the
pointer to this code).
Anyway, your above example is wrong, the most significant bits comes first:
ffff0000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000
This makes it not more readable, but I think readability isn't in this
case of that much importance.
I further think, this problem could be easily solved, if NR_CPUS and
possibly your nr_cpus_ids is somehow exported to user space.
With this information, the user is not surprised to see more that 1024
bits (=CPU_SETSIZE, which is currently the glibc constant for the
sched_{set,get}affinity() API). Also the glibc has the new variable
cpu_set_t size API (since 2.7).
Bert
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
--
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