From: Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk>, Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>,
Tigran Aivazian <tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@amd.com>, Greg Banks <gnb@sgi.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@saeurebad.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] cpumask: Replace cpumask_of_cpu with cpumask_of_cpu_ptr
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:16:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <48873D35.9030204@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080723112042.GA16420@elte.hu>
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> I wouldn't mind it at all, and since it's almost always calling a
>>> function that requires a cpumask_t pointer (like the cpu_* ops or
>>> set_cpus_allowed_ptr) then there shouldn't be too many "pointer
>>> dereference" penalties. I'm just always a bit hesitant to make too
>>> many generic changes since I have only x86 and ia64 machines to test
>>> with.
>> The simple version is just a static array of [NR_CPUS] cpumask_t's.
>> Do that, with an override for smarter archs?
>>
>> I really REALLY prefer that over the fairly tortuous macros.
>
> a fresh commit in -git has exposed the topology.h mess - see the hack
> below. We now have diverging versions of topology_core_siblings()
> semantics - that sure cannot be right. Mike?
>
> Ingo
>
> ------->
> commit 695a6b456307455a10059512208e8ed0d376ecd3
> Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Date: Wed Jul 23 13:19:44 2008 +0200
>
> topology: work around topology_core_siblings() breakage
>
> work around:
>
> drivers/net/sfc/efx.c: In function ‘efx_probe_interrupts':
> drivers/net/sfc/efx.c:845: error: lvalue required as unary ‘&' operand
>
> the topology API is a mess right now ...
>
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> ---
> drivers/net/sfc/efx.c | 2 ++
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/efx.c b/drivers/net/sfc/efx.c
> index 45c72ee..1ababfa 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/sfc/efx.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/efx.c
> @@ -842,8 +842,10 @@ static void efx_probe_interrupts(struct efx_nic *efx)
> for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> if (!cpu_isset(cpu, core_mask)) {
> ++efx->rss_queues;
> +#if 0
> cpus_or(core_mask, core_mask,
> topology_core_siblings(cpu));
> +#endif
> }
> }
> } else {
Ahh, yes, I see it now. If you don't define topology_core_siblings then you get:
#ifndef topology_core_siblings
#define topology_core_siblings(cpu) cpumask_of_cpu(cpu)
#endif
And of course this is no longer an lvalue.
Rusty - if you don't think there'll be objections from other arches I can put in
a generic cpumask_of_cpu_map[].
Thanks,
Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-23 14:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-15 21:14 [PATCH 0/8] cpumask: Replace/optimize cpumask_of_cpu & cpumask_t operations Mike Travis
2008-07-15 21:14 ` [PATCH 1/8] cpumask: Replace cpumask_of_cpu with cpumask_of_cpu_ptr Mike Travis
2008-07-18 5:30 ` Rusty Russell
2008-07-18 13:43 ` Mike Travis
2008-07-20 10:03 ` Rusty Russell
2008-07-23 11:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-23 11:23 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-23 14:26 ` Mike Travis
2008-07-24 0:46 ` Rusty Russell
2008-07-23 14:16 ` Mike Travis [this message]
2008-07-23 17:45 ` Mike Travis
2008-07-15 21:14 ` [PATCH 2/8] cpumask: Optimize cpumask_of_cpu in arch/x86/kernel/io_apic_64.c Mike Travis
2008-07-15 21:14 ` [PATCH 3/8] cpumask: Optimize cpumask_of_cpu in arch/x86/kernel/ldt.c Mike Travis
2008-07-15 21:14 ` [PATCH 4/8] cpumask: Optimize cpumask_of_cpu in drivers/misc/sgi-xp/xpc_main.c Mike Travis
2008-07-16 11:17 ` Dean Nelson
2008-07-15 21:14 ` [PATCH 5/8] cpumask: Optimize cpumask_of_cpu in kernel/time/tick-common.c Mike Travis
2008-07-15 21:14 ` [PATCH 6/8] cpumask: Optimize cpumask_of_cpu in lib/smp_processor_id.c Mike Travis
2008-07-18 20:33 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-18 20:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-07-18 22:36 ` Mike Travis
2008-07-15 21:14 ` [PATCH 7/8] cpumask: Provide a generic set of CPUMASK_ALLOC macros Mike Travis
2008-07-16 6:41 ` Bert Wesarg
2008-07-16 12:25 ` Mike Travis
2008-07-16 13:01 ` Mike Travis
2008-07-15 21:14 ` [PATCH 8/8] cpumask: Use optimized CPUMASK_ALLOC macros in the centrino_target Mike Travis
2008-07-18 20:04 ` [PATCH 0/8] cpumask: Replace/optimize cpumask_of_cpu & cpumask_t operations Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=48873D35.9030204@sgi.com \
--to=travis@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bunk@kernel.org \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davej@codemonkey.org.uk \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=gnb@sgi.com \
--cc=hannes@saeurebad.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=robert.richter@amd.com \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=schwab@suse.de \
--cc=steiner@sgi.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tigran@aivazian.fsnet.co.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome