[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200812081638.07526.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:38:07 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
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
On Monday 08 December 2008 02:44:00 Avi Kivity wrote:
> 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.
I'd prefer not to hide deadlocks that way :(
I'll re-battle with that code to neaten it. There are only a few places
which have these kind of issues.
Thanks,
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