From: Russ Weight <rweight@us.ibm.com>
To: Denis Vlasenko <vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>
Cc: mingo@elte.hu, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Scalable CPU bitmasks
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:04:42 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020320150442.A1264@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020318140700.A4635@us.ibm.com> <200203190728.g2J7Srq31344@Port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 09:28:25AM -0200, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> On 18 March 2002 20:07, Russ Weight wrote:
> > While systems with more than 32 processors are still
> > out in the future, these interfaces provide a path for gradual
> > code migration. One of the primary goals is to provide current
> > functionality without affecting performance.
>
> Not so far in the future. "7.52 second kernel compile" thread is about
> timing kernel compile on the 32 CPU SMP box.
>
> I don't know whether BUG() in inlines makes them too big, but
> _for() _loops_ in inline functions definitely do that.
> Here's one of the overgrown inlines:
I was hoping for some feedback regarding the use of BUG(). I have
been experimenting with the patch - changing various bitmasks to
use this new datatype. None of them do the error checking that I am
adding. Is it worth the overhead to have these checks at all? If
they ever trigger, they are indicative of an error elsewhere in the
kernel...
With respect to the for loops: For CPUMAP_SIZE > 1, most of the
interfaces expand to a "for loop". This is a performance vs. bloat
tradeoff. The "for-loop" versions of the functions _could_ be moved
to a cpumap.c file under lib. Is this the recommended approach?
The cpumap_format() function below is probably the worst offender.
There is no real performance value in making it an inline function...
>
> > +static inline char *cpumap_format(cpumap_t map, char *buf, int size)
> > +{
> > + if (size < CPUMAP_BUFSIZE) {
> > + BUG();
> > + }
> > +
> > +#if CPUMAP_SIZE > 1
> > + sprintf(buf, "0x" CPUMAP_FORMAT_STR, map[CPUMAP_SIZE-1]);
> > + {
> > + int i;
> > + char *p = buf + strlen(buf);
> > + for (i = CPUMAP_SIZE-2; i >= 0; i--, p += (sizeof(long) + 1)) {
> > + sprintf(p, " " CPUMAP_FORMAT_STR, map[i]);
> > + }
> > + }
> > +#else
> > + sprintf(buf, "0x" CPUMAP_FORMAT_STR, map[0]);
> > +#endif
> > + return(buf);
> > +}
> --
> vda
--
Russ Weight (rweight@us.ibm.com)
Linux Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-03-20 23:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-03-18 22:07 [PATCH] Scalable CPU bitmasks Russ Weight
2002-03-19 11:28 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-03-19 7:56 ` Andrew Morton
2002-03-20 23:04 ` Russ Weight [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-03-18 22:28 Manfred Spraul
2002-03-18 22:42 ` Tim Hockin
2002-03-18 22:44 ` Russ Weight
2002-01-30 0:32 Russ Weight
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=20020320150442.A1264@us.ibm.com \
--to=rweight@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua \
/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