[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <493BF648.6060504@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 18:14:00 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC: kvm-devel <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kvm: use modern cpumask primitives, no cpumask_t
on stack
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Rusty Russell wrote:
>> We're getting rid on on-stack cpumasks for large NR_CPUS.
>>
>> 1) Use cpumask_var_t and alloc_cpumask_var (a noop normally). Fallback
>> code is inefficient but never happens in practice.
>
> Wow, code duplication from Rusty. Things must be bad.
>
> Since we're in a get_cpu() here, how about a per_cpu static cpumask
> instead? I don't mind the inefficient fallback, just the duplication.
>
Btw, for the general case, instead of forcing everyone to duplicate, how
about:
cpumask_var_t cpus;
with_cpumask(cpus) {
... code to populate cpus
smp_call_function_some(...);
} end_with_cpumask(cpus);
Where with_cpumask() allocates cpus, and uses a mutex + static fallback
on failure.
May need a couple of variants (spinlock + GFP_NOWAIT, mutex with
sleeping allocation).
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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