From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754388AbdBHMfM (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:35:12 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:57570 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753307AbdBHMfG (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 8 Feb 2017 07:35:06 -0500
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 12:40:16 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: tip: demise of tsk_cpus_allowed() and tsk_nr_cpus_allowed()
Message-ID: <20170208114016.GX6500@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1486355037.10462.17.camel@gmx.de>
 <20170206103156.GA18908@gmail.com>
 <1486383511.10462.43.camel@gmx.de>
 <20170206122928.GB9404@gmail.com>
 <20170206133242.GK6515@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170206222313.GA6061@gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702081107450.3536@nanos>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1702081107450.3536@nanos>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:20:19AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2017, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > cpumasks are a pain, the above avoids allocating more of them.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> > Yeah, so this could then be done by pointerifying ->cpus_allowed - more robust 
> > than the wrappery,
> 
> You mean:
> 
> struct task_struct {
>        cpumask_t	cpus_allowed;
>        cpumask_t	*effective_cpus_allowed;
> };
> 
> and make the scheduler use effective_cpus_allowed instead of cpus_allowed?
> Or what do you have in mind?

That scheme is weird for nr_cpus_allowed. Not to mention that the
pointer to the integer is larger than the integer itself.

I really prefer the current wrappers, they're trivial and consistent
with one another.