[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201006281901.27517.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:01:26 +0930
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
Bryan Wu <cooloney@...nel.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, anton@...ba.org,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] cpumask: make task_struct.cpus_allowed a cpumask_var_t
On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 01:30:25 am Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2010, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> > Even better would be to point to the fixed "one cpu" and "all cpus"
> > masks where possible, and make a copy when setting it to something
> > else. But you'd have to track down those naughty places which frob it
> > directly...
>
> Put it into a read only segment?
Well, I was thinking of an audit as the first step :)
> What is the estimated performance impact of adding a level of indirection
> (and a potential cache miss) to a number of critical code paths?
Unknown. Originally, I moved the mask to the end of the struct (so we could
under-allocate for the CPUMASK_OFFSTACK nr_cpu_ids < NR_CPUS case), but Ingo
didn't want to change the struct for the non-CPUMASK_OFFSTACK case.
Measurements welcome...
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