From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: cpu-2.5.64-1
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 02:10:55 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030316101055.GG20188@holomorphy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16504.1047806371@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au>
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003 00:36:09 -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> That was a bit too braindead of a translation, yes. But it is x86 arch
>> code so it shouldn't be that large of an issue for big MIPS boxen etc.
>> I'll search & replace for stuff of this kind and wipe it out anyway.
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 08:19:31PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
> Good, it lets us optimize for 1/32/64/lots of cpus. NR_CPUS > 8 *
> sizeof(unsigned long) is the interesting case, it needs arrays.
Hmm. It shouldn't make a difference with respect to optimizing them.
My API passes transparently by reference:
#include <linux/bitmap.h>
#define CPU_ARRAY_SIZE BITS_TO_LONGS(NR_CPUS)
struct cpumask
{
unsigned long mask[CPU_ARRAY_SIZE];
};
typedef struct cpumask cpumask_t;
#define cpu_set(cpu, map) set_bit(cpu, (map).mask)
#define cpu_clear(cpu, map) clear_bit(cpu, (map).mask)
#define cpu_isset(cpu, map) test_bit(cpu, (map).mask)
#define cpu_test_and_set(cpu, map) test_and_set_bit(cpu, (map).mask)
+
#define cpus_and(dst,src1,src2) bitmap_and((dst).mask, (src1).mask, (src2).mask, NR_CPUS)
#define cpus_or(dst,src1,src2) bitmap_or((dst).mask, (src1).mask, (src2).mask, NR_CPUS)
#define cpus_clear(map) bitmap_clear((map).mask, NR_CPUS)
#define cpus_equal(map1, map2) bitmap_equal((map1).mask, (map2).mask, NR_CPUS)
#define cpus_empty(map) (any_online_cpu(map) >= NR_CPUS)
#define first_cpu(map) find_first_bit((map).mask, NR_CPUS)
#define next_cpu(cpu, map) find_next_bit((map).mask, NR_CPUS, cpu)
i.e. the structures vaguely look like they're being passed by value and
I get the pointer to the start of the array with implicit decay.
Now the special case exploits the appearance of call by value:
#else /* !CONFIG_SMP */
typedef unsigned long cpumask_t;
#define any_online_cpu(map) ((map) != 0UL)
#define cpu_set(cpu, map) do { map |= 1UL << (cpu); } while (0)
#define cpu_clear(cpu, map) do { map &= ~(1UL << (cpu)); } while (0)
#define cpu_isset(cpu, map) ((map) & (1UL << (cpu)))
#define cpu_test_and_set(cpu, map) test_and_set_bit(cpu, &(map))
#define cpus_and(dst,src1,src2) do { dst = (src1) & (src2); } while (0)
#define cpus_or(dst,src1,src2) do { dst = (src1) | (src2); } while (0)
#define cpus_clear(map) do { map = 0UL; } while (0)
#define cpus_equal(map1, map2) ((map1) == (map2))
#define cpus_empty(map) ((map) != 0UL)
#define first_cpu(map) 0
#define next_cpu(cpu, map) NR_CPUS
... okay, a couple of minor fixups are needed for small-scale SMP, but
you get the idea. So basically the references to cpu_online_map don't
affect the UP/tinySMP special-casing b/c of the calling conventions
giving enough play to use either pointers (wrapped in structures) or
plain old unsigned longs.
fixups:
#define first_cpu(map) __ffs(map)
#define next_cpu(cpu, map) __ffs((map) & ~((1UL < (cpu)) - 1))
*and* the plain old bugfix(!):
#define cpus_empty(map) ((map) == 0UL)
So mostly there isn't much to get excited about, but using
cpu_online_map directly doesn't appear to be a plus or a minus for my
strategy, if it in fact differs enough from any of the various others
of these posted before to be able to be called my own.
-- wli
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-03-16 10:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-03-11 4:24 cpu-2.5.64-1 William Lee Irwin III
2003-03-11 7:17 ` cpu-2.5.64-1 Zwane Mwaikambo
2003-03-11 8:25 ` cpu-2.5.64-1 Zwane Mwaikambo
2003-03-16 7:39 ` cpu-2.5.64-1 Keith Owens
2003-03-16 8:36 ` cpu-2.5.64-1 William Lee Irwin III
2003-03-16 9:19 ` cpu-2.5.64-1 Keith Owens
2003-03-16 9:46 ` cpu-2.5.64-1 William Lee Irwin III
2003-03-16 10:10 ` William Lee Irwin III [this message]
2003-03-16 11:12 ` cpu-2.5.64-1 Keith Owens
2003-03-16 11:32 ` cpu-2.5.64-1 William Lee Irwin III
2003-03-16 11:53 ` cpu-2.5.64-1 Keith Owens
2003-03-16 12:00 ` cpu-2.5.64-1 William Lee Irwin III
2003-03-16 12:42 ` cpu-2.5.64-1 Horst von Brand
2003-03-16 19:14 ` cpu-2.5.64-1 William Lee Irwin III
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=20030316101055.GG20188@holomorphy.com \
--to=wli@holomorphy.com \
--cc=kaos@ocs.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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