Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265569AbUFDCnH (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jun 2004 22:43:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265572AbUFDCnH (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jun 2004 22:43:07 -0400 Received: from mtvcafw.sgi.com ([192.48.171.6]:46751 "EHLO omx3.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265569AbUFDCnD (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Jun 2004 22:43:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 19:47:55 -0700 From: Paul Jackson To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@muc.de, ashok.raj@intel.com, hch@infradead.org, jbarnes@sgi.com, joe.korty@ccur.com, manfred@colorfullife.com, colpatch@us.ibm.com, mikpe@csd.uu.se, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, Simon.Derr@bull.net, wli@holomorphy.com, "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpumask 5/10 rewrite cpumask.h - single bitmap based implementation Message-Id: <20040603194755.667e584b.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20040603170725.4b3f8b34.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20040603094339.03ddfd42.pj@sgi.com> <20040603101010.4b15734a.pj@sgi.com> <20040603170725.4b3f8b34.akpm@osdl.org> 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 Content-Length: 1606 Lines: 40 Andrew wrote: > Paul Jackson wrote: > > > > Major rewrite of cpumask to use a single implementation, > > as a struct-wrapped bitmap. > > > > ... > > > > +typedef struct { DECLARE_BITMAP(bits, NR_CPUS); } cpumask_t; > > We avoided doing this because in some situations the compiler will not pass > such a cpumask_t in a register, ever. An efficiency problem on sparc64, > apparently. When I contacted Dave Miller about this specific problem on March 26, 2004, he explained that this was more of a problem on sparc32, and that since SMP on sparc32 wasn't in robust shape yet (my words), he seemed (from what I could tell) not to be objecting too strongly. I've added Dave to the Cc list, in case he wants to add or something, or correct my efforts to represent his position. At this point, if sparc (32 or 64) is a concern, I'd look into adding arch-specific code for that case. The overall cleanup of cpumasks pleases me enough that I would seek to minimize the impact on the generic case for specific arch's that require an alternative implementation. My current understanding is that such a special case is not required for sparc, or any other arch. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.650.933.1373 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/