From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266921AbUGVTfP (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:35:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265249AbUGVTfP (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:35:15 -0400 Received: from mtvcafw.sgi.com ([192.48.171.6]:7496 "EHLO omx3.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261378AbUGVTe6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:34:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:34:37 -0700 From: Paul Jackson To: Dimitri Sivanich Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: [RFC] Patch for isolated scheduler domains Message-Id: <20040722123437.1f0398db.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20040722164126.GB13189@sgi.com> References: <20040722164126.GB13189@sgi.com> Organization: SGI X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.8.10claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org You should double check my logic, but I think a couple of the cpumask calculations can be tightened up, as follows. Dimitri Sivanich wrote: > > + cpumask_t cpu_nonisolated; > + > + cpus_and(cpu_nonisolated, cpu_possible_map, isol_cpumask); > + cpus_complement(cpu_nonisolated, cpu_nonisolated); > + cpus_and(cpu_nonisolated, cpu_nonisolated, cpu_possible_map); cpumask_t cpu_nonisolated; cpus_andnot(cpu_nonisolated, cpu_possible_map, isol_cpumas); > + cpumask_t tmp = node_to_cpumask(i); > + cpumask_t nodemask; > + ... > + cpus_and(nodemask, tmp, cpu_nonisolated); cpumask_t nodemask; ... cpus_and(nodemask, node_to_cpumask(i), cpu_nonisolated); -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.650.933.1373