[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160329130514.GA17315@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 15:05:14 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] nohz: Convert tick dependency mask to atomic_t
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 4:44 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Harmonizing thread_info::flags does not look easy, given how much assembly code
> > > accesses this field.
> >
> > It might not be too bad.
> >
> > For 32-bit architectures (which is still most of them), it's just a
> >
> > unsigned int/long -> atomic_t
> >
> > and for 64-bit architectures you end up with three choices:
> >
> > - it's already 32-bit (alpha, ia64, x86):
> >
> > unsigned int -> atomic_t
> >
> > - little-endian long:
> >
> > atomic_t flags
> > unsigned int padding;
> >
> > - big-endian long (only powerpc? Maybe there's a big-endian MIPS still?)
> >
> > unsigned int padding;
> > atomic_t flags;
>
> Hm, that indeed sounds fairly nice and doable - I thought some architectures do
> have a task flag above bit 31, but that does not appear to be so ...
>
> Right now we seem to have 27 bits defined in include/linux/sched.h, with 5 more
> bits left for the future. Here's their current usage histogram in the kernel
> source:
>
> PF_KTHREAD : 68
> PF_MEMALLOC : 65
Argh, my reading comprehension skills suck today.
That's a totally useless analysis of task_struct::flags, while we want to convert
thread_info::flags...
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists