From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S935664AbXGZS2L@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S935664AbXGZS2L (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:28:11 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S935011AbXGZS1n
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:27:43 -0400
Received: from mail.screens.ru ([213.234.233.54]:46526 "EHLO mail.screens.ru"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S934911AbXGZS1m (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:27:42 -0400
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:27:27 +0400
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] make schedule_on_each_cpu() look like on_each_cpu()
Message-ID: <20070726182727.GA173@tv-sign.ru>
References: <1185448139.8197.78.camel@twins>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1185448139.8197.78.camel@twins>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 07/26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> -int schedule_on_each_cpu(work_func_t func)
> +int schedule_on_each_cpu(void (*func)(void *info), void *info, int retry, int wait)
>  {
>  	int cpu;
> -	struct work_struct *works;
> +	struct schedule_on_each_cpu_work **works;
> +	int err = 0;
>  
> -	works = alloc_percpu(struct work_struct);
> +	works = kzalloc(sizeof(void *)*nr_cpu_ids, GFP_KERNEL);

Not a comment, but a question: why do we need nr_cpu_ids at all?
num_possible_cpus() looks more "correct" if cpu_possible_map has
holes (not sure this can happen in practice).

Another off-topic question: shouldn't we kill the unused "retry"
parameter of on_each_cpu() instead of mirroring it here?

> +out:
> +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> +		if (works[cpu])
> +			kfree(works[cpu]);
> +	}

Small nit, kfree(NULL) is OK.

Oleg.