[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080822134720.GG6875@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 06:47:20 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, manfred@...orfullife.com,
dipankar@...ibm.com, josht@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, schamp@....com,
niv@...ibm.com, dvhltc@...ibm.com, ego@...ibm.com,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, rostedt@...dmis.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC, tip/core/rcu] scalable classic RCU implementation
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 06:37:15AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > +#define MAX_RCU_LEVELS 3
> > +#if NR_CPUS <= CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT
> > +#define NUM_RCU_LEVELS 1
> > +#define NUM_RCU_LEVEL_1 1
> > +#define NUM_RCU_LEVEL_2 NR_CPUS
> > +#define NUM_RCU_LEVEL_3 0
> > +#define NUM_RCU_LEVEL_4 0
> > +#define NUM_RCU_NODES NUM_RCU_LEVEL_1
> > +#elif NR_CPUS <= CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT * CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT
> > +#define NUM_RCU_LEVELS 2
> > +#define NUM_RCU_LEVEL_1 1
> > +#define NUM_RCU_LEVEL_2 \
> > + (((NR_CPUS) + (CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT) - 1) / (CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT))
> > +#define NUM_RCU_LEVEL_3 NR_CPUS
> > +#define NUM_RCU_LEVEL_4 0
> > +#define NUM_RCU_NODES \
> > + ((NUM_RCU_LEVEL_1) + (NUM_RCU_LEVEL_2))
> > +#elif NR_CPUS <= CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT * CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT * CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT
> > +#define NUM_RCU_LEVELS 3
> > +#define RCU_FANOUT_SQ ((CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT) * (CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT))
> > +#define NUM_RCU_LEVEL_1 1
> > +#define NUM_RCU_LEVEL_2 \
> > + (((NR_CPUS) + (RCU_FANOUT_SQ) - 1) / (RCU_FANOUT_SQ))
> > +#define NUM_RCU_LEVEL_3 \
> > + ((NR_CPUS) + (CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT) - 1) / (CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT)
> > +#define NUM_RCU_LEVEL_4 NR_CPUS
> > +#define NUM_RCU_NODES \
> > + ((NUM_RCU_LEVEL_1) + \
> > + (NUM_RCU_LEVEL_2) + \
> > + (NUM_RCU_LEVEL_3))
> > +#else
> > +#error "CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT insufficient for NR_CPUS"
> > +#endif
>
> just a quick stylistic suggestion: if feasible then such sizing ugliness
> should be hidden in a Kconfig file. (if Kconfig is capable enough for
> this that is)
I have no idea if Kconfig can do it, but I will check.
Thanx, Paul
--
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