From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: [Patch][RFC] Disabling per-tgid stats on task exit in taskstats Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 12:59:09 -0700 Message-ID: <20060704125909.1265fadc.pj@sgi.com> References: <44892610.6040001@watson.ibm.com> <449CAA78.4080902@watson.ibm.com> <20060623213912.96056b02.akpm@osdl.org> <449CD4B3.8020300@watson.ibm.com> <44A01A50.1050403@sgi.com> <20060626105548.edef4c64.akpm@osdl.org> <44A020CD.30903@watson.ibm.com> <20060626111249.7aece36e.akpm@osdl.org> <44A026ED.8080903@sgi.com> <20060626113959.839d72bc.akpm@osdl.org> <44A2F50D.8030306@engr.sgi.com> <20060628145341.529a61ab.akpm@osdl.org> <44A2FC72.9090407@engr.sgi.com> <20060629014050.d3bf0be4.pj@sgi.com> <200606291230.k5TCUg45030710@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20060629094408.360ac157.pj@sgi.com> <20060629110107.2e56310b.akpm@osdl.org> <44A57310.3010208@watson.ibm.com> <44A5770F.3080206@watson.ibm.com> <20060630155030.5ea1faba.akpm@osdl.org> <44A5DBE7.2020704@watson.ibm.com> <44A5EDE6.3010605@watson.ibm.com> <20060702215350.2c1de596.pj@sgi.com> <44A93179.2080303@watson.ibm.com> <20060703093148.5e61a7e4.pj@sgi.com> <44A9B1A9.20106@watson.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: akpm@osdl.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, jlan@engr.sgi.com, balbir@in.ibm.com, csturtiv@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hadi@cyberus.ca, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19]:32418 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932367AbWGDT7m (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:59:42 -0400 To: Shailabh Nagar In-Reply-To: <44A9B1A9.20106@watson.ibm.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Shailabh wrote: > Perhaps I should use the the other ascii format for specifying cpumasks > since its more amenable > to specifying an upper bound for the length of the ascii string and is > more compact ? Eh - basically - I don't have a strong opinion either way. I have a slight esthetic preference toward using list of ranges format from shell scripts and shell prompts, and using the 32-bit hex words from C code: 17-26,44-47 # shell - list of ranges 0000f000,07fe0000 # C - 32-bit hex words Since the primary interface you are working with is C code, that would mean I'd slightly prefer the 32-bit hex word variant. >>From what I've seen neither of the reasons you gave for preferring the 32-bit hex word format are persuasive (even though they both lead to the same conclusion as I preferred ;): Which is more compact depends on that particular bit pattern you need to represent. See for example the examples above. The lack of a perfect upper bound on the list of ranges format is a theoretical problem that I have never seen in practice. Only pathological constructs exceed six ascii characters per set bit. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401