[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1332863135.16159.239.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:45:35 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>, Dan Smith <danms@...ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Bharata B Rao <bharata.rao@...il.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/39] autonuma: introduce kthread_bind_node()
On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 17:22 +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> I don't see what's wrong with more than 1 CPU in the hard bind
> cpumask.
Because its currently broken, but we're trying to restore its pure
semantic so that we can use it in more places again, like
debug_smp_processor_id(). Testing a single process flag is _much_
cheaper than testing ->cpus_allowed.
Adding more broken isn't an option.
--
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