[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20251020082250.GF3245006@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:22:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@...icios.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
"Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
TCMalloc Team <tcmalloc-eng@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 06/19] sched/mmcid: Prevent pointless work in
mm_update_cpus_allowed()
On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 10:32:47PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17 2025 at 20:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 07:58:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> Same is true when you offline a CPU come to think of it.
> >>
> >> Same is true if the cpumask is sparse.
> >>
> >> Anyway, just saying, checking against nr_cpu_ids might not be the best
> >> shortcut here.
> >
> > Put another way, nr_cpus_allowed == nr_cpu_ids only work when none of
> > the masks involved have holes. The moment anything {possible, present,
> > online} has holes in, it goes sideways.
>
> You're right. I was too narrowly focussed on the normal x86 case, where
> nr_cpu_ids == num_possible_cpus ....
>
> Let me think about that.
So the obvious idea would be to grow hotplug hooks, such that you can
do:
nr_cpus_allowed == num_online_cpus()
But then hotplug will have to iterate all mm's. Doable, but not really
nice.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists