From: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] cpumask: Purify cpumask_next()
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 17:34:26 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5EE58FF7-FDAA-4C4E-8A61-B8BECC29CDD3@vmware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190527083052.GR2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
> On May 27, 2019, at 1:30 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 01:21:59AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> cpumask_next() has no side-effects. Mark it as pure.
>
> It would be good to have a few word on why... because apparently you
> found this makes a difference.
I see that eventually it did not make any difference. I saw in the past that
some instances of the kernel are affected by it, but I will remove it from
this patch-set in the next iteration.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-27 17:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-25 8:21 [RFC PATCH 0/6] x86/mm: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently Nadav Amit
2019-05-25 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 1/6] smp: Remove smp_call_function() and on_each_cpu() return values Nadav Amit
2019-05-25 8:21 ` [RFC PATCH 2/6] cpumask: Purify cpumask_next() Nadav Amit
2019-05-25 8:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2019-05-27 8:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-27 17:34 ` Nadav Amit [this message]
2019-05-25 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 3/6] smp: Run functions concurrently in smp_call_function_many() Nadav Amit
2019-05-27 9:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-27 17:39 ` Nadav Amit
2019-05-25 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 4/6] x86/mm/tlb: Refactor common code into flush_tlb_on_cpus() Nadav Amit
2019-05-27 9:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-27 18:59 ` Nadav Amit
2019-05-27 19:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-25 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 5/6] x86/mm/tlb: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently Nadav Amit
2019-05-25 8:38 ` Nadav Amit
2019-05-25 8:54 ` Juergen Gross
2019-05-27 9:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-27 10:21 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-05-27 12:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-27 12:45 ` Paolo Bonzini
2019-05-27 17:49 ` Nadav Amit
2019-05-25 8:22 ` [RFC PATCH 6/6] x86/mm/tlb: Optimize local TLB flushes Nadav Amit
2019-05-27 8:28 ` [RFC PATCH 0/6] x86/mm: Flush remote and local TLBs concurrently Peter Zijlstra
2019-05-27 9:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=5EE58FF7-FDAA-4C4E-8A61-B8BECC29CDD3@vmware.com \
--to=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®