[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: kcpuset(9) questions
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 11:45:33PM +0000, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> Matt Thomas <matt%3am-software.com@localhost> wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Mindaugas Rasiukevicius wrote:
> > > Any reason why do you need bitfield based iteration, as opposed to list
> > > or array based?
> > Be nice to have a MI method instead a hodgepodge of MD methods.
> > The CPU_FOREACH method is ugly.
> I totally agree. That is why couple years ago I wanted to add and convert
> everything to MI replacement of struct cpu_info. Since this work requires
> intervention to all ports, it did not materialise since.. After cleaning
> up the dust from ancient patches, I could put MI interface into a branch.
I want to manipulate sets of CPUs in the kernel, and a set of CPUs is
what I understand a kcpuset_t to be.
Sometimes I want to iterate over the members of a set.
> However, I do not think that adding ad-hoc bitfield based interface in
> addition to the "ugly" one is an improvement. Quite the opposite as then
> we would need to deal with two "not great" ones.
I don't care whether the implementation of CPU sets is based on
bitfields or lists or arrays. And it's fine with me if kcpuset
iteration is not in addition to CPU_INFO_FOREACH, but instead of it.
dyoung%pobox.com@localhost Urbana, IL (217) 721-9981
Main Index |
Thread Index |