[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8763p6vr3b.fsf@basil.nowhere.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:01:44 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
davej@...emonkey.org.uk, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Jes Sorensen <jes@....com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 09/13] genapic: reduce stack pressuge in io_apic.c step 1 temp cpumask_ts
Mike Travis <travis@....com> writes:
> * Step 1 of cleaning up io_apic.c removes local cpumask_t variables
> from the stack.
Sorry that patch seems incredibly messy. Global variables
and a tricky ordering and while it's at least commented it's still a mess
and maintenance unfriendly.
Also I think set_affinity is the only case where a truly arbitary cpu
mask can be passed in anyways. And it's passed in from elsewhere.
The other cases generally just want to handle a subset of CPUs which
are nearby. How about you define a new cpumask like type that
consists of a start/stop CPU and a mask for that range only
and is not larger than a few words?
I think with that the nearby assignments could be handled
reasonably cleanly with arguments and local variables.
And I suspect with some restructuring set_affinity could
be also made to support such a model.
-Andi
--
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