From: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86-64: software IRQ masking and handling
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:32:24 +0930 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201007121732.26092.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1278911493.2538.204.camel@edumazet-laptop>
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 02:41:33 pm Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Two changes are possible :
>
> 1) Get rid of the cpu_online_mask (its a const pointer to a known
> target). I cant see a reason for its need it actually...
There was a reason, but I'm trying to remember it.
ISTR, it was to catch direct frobbing of the masks. That was important:
we were converting code everywhere to hand around cpumasks by ptr
rather than by copy. But that semantic change meant that a function which
previously harmlessly frobbed a copy would now frob (say) cpu_online_mask.
However, ((const struct cpumask *)cpu_online_bits)) would work for that
too. (Well, renaming cpu_online_bits to __cpu_online_bits would be better
since it's not non-static).
Ideally, those masks too would be dynamically allocated. But the boot
changes required for that are best left until someone really needs > 64k
CPUs.
> 2) Dont use a the last const qualifier but __read_mostly to move
> cpu_online_mask on same section.
>
> Rusty, could you comment on one or other way before I submit a patch ?
>
> (Of course, possible/present/active have same problem)
Yep. Might want to do a patch to get rid of the remaining 100 references
to cpu_online_map (etc) as well if you're feeling enthusiastic :)
Thanks!
Rusty.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-12 8:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-11 18:01 [RFC PATCH] x86-64: software IRQ masking and handling Tejun Heo
2010-07-11 19:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-07-11 20:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-07-11 22:03 ` Steven Rostedt
2010-07-12 1:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-07-12 5:11 ` Eric Dumazet
2010-07-12 8:02 ` Rusty Russell [this message]
2010-07-12 7:41 ` Tejun Heo
2010-07-12 2:19 ` Rusty Russell
2010-07-12 2:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-07-12 7:45 ` Tejun Heo
2010-07-12 7:35 ` Tejun Heo
2010-07-12 13:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2010-08-03 21:37 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2010-08-04 2:09 ` Rusty Russell
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=201007121732.26092.rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--to=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@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