Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265947AbUFDSoC (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:44:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265942AbUFDSoB (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:44:01 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([207.189.100.168]:2216 "EHLO holomorphy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265945AbUFDSnr (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Jun 2004 14:43:47 -0400 Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 11:42:14 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Paul Jackson Cc: mikpe@csd.uu.se, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.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, Simon.Derr@bull.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpumask 5/10 rewrite cpumask.h - single bitmap based implementation Message-ID: <20040604184214.GJ21007@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , Paul Jackson , mikpe@csd.uu.se, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.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, Simon.Derr@bull.net References: <16576.17673.548349.36588@alkaid.it.uu.se> <20040604095929.GX21007@holomorphy.com> <16576.23059.490262.610771@alkaid.it.uu.se> <20040604112744.GZ21007@holomorphy.com> <20040604113252.GA21007@holomorphy.com> <20040604092316.3ab91e36.pj@sgi.com> <20040604162853.GB21007@holomorphy.com> <20040604104756.472fd542.pj@sgi.com> <20040604181233.GF21007@holomorphy.com> <20040604114219.40e50737.pj@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040604114219.40e50737.pj@sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 927 Lines: 21 William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> Without any way to reliably determine this, luserspace is fscked. On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 11:42:19AM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote: > I don't see why user code needs to determine NR_CPUS exactly. Any > reasonable upper bound should work - reasonable meaning doesn't waste > too many unused words of memory. > It's not really NR_CPUS that users need - its a reasonably close upper > bound to the size of the space that sched_getaffinity() must be provided > they need. And your code does a pretty good job of providing that. Wrong. Apps that want to reconfigure the system to e.g. online more cpus in response to heightened load want to know. -- wli - 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/