Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765431AbYBNUaY (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:30:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754395AbYBNUaM (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:30:12 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:52528 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753164AbYBNUaK (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:30:10 -0500 From: Andi Kleen Organization: SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Nuernberg, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) To: Mike Travis Subject: Re: [RFC] bitmap relative operator for mempolicy extensions Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:30:05 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Christoph Lameter , Paul Jackson , David Rientjes , Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com, mel@csn.ul.ie, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org References: <20080214123528.25274.84387.sendpatchset@jackhammer.engr.sgi.com> <47B4A3D7.7040007@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <47B4A3D7.7040007@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200802142130.06155.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1355 Lines: 34 On Thursday 14 February 2008 21:25:59 Mike Travis wrote: > Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > >> You're saying the kernel should use these relative masks internally? > > > > There is just some thoughts about this. Did not have time to look into the > > details. Mike? > > There are a few places where the entire cpumask is not needed. For > example, in the area of core siblings on a node. There's a limit > to how many cores/threads can be on a node and the full 4k cpumask > is not needed. How this pertains to this new functionality I'm > not sure yet. That would require that the BIOS enumerates the CPUs in a way that the cores of a socket are continuous. While that's usually true I don't think there's a guarantee. In theory they could be all scattered. Ok I theory Linux could remap later but that seems hardly worth the trouble. I would rather just use arrays of integers in this case with a reasonable fixed upper limit (e.g. 16 or 32 -- if there are ever >32 thread x86 CPUs presumably they will require an updated cpufreq driver too...) -Andi -- 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/