[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <493D2F4D.3090702@sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:29:33 -0800
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, kvm-devel <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kvm: use cpumask_var_t for cpus_hardware_enabled
Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Monday 08 December 2008 20:16:44 Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Rusty Russell wrote:
>>>> This isn't on stack, so it isn't buying us anything.
>>>>
>>> It's the CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4096 but nr_cpu_ids=4 case which we win using
>>> dynamic allocation. Gotta love distribution kernels.
>>>
>>>
>> What does it buy? 4096/8 = 512 bytes statically allocated?
>
> It adds up, and 4096 seems to be only the start of the insanityH^H^Hfun.
The real win though is when cpumask_size represents the actual size of the
cpumask (based on # of possible cpus) instead of the pre-configured size
of NR_CPUS. So for 99.9% of the systems (having 64 or fewer cpus), the
savings will be 504 bytes not allocated.
>
>>> Not quite. If !CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK, cpumask_var_t == cpumask_t[1].
>>> Blame Linus :)
>>>
>> Hm, is there a C trick which will error out when allocating something on
>> the stack, but work when allocating statically? I can think of
>> something to do the reverse, but that doesn't help.
>
> We also need to prevent assignment, eg:
>
> *foo = *bar;
>
> Because when we allocate them, we'll cut them to size.
>
> Cheers,
> Rusty.
--
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