Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1337688
| From | Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86/perf/intel/cqm: Get rid of the silly for_each_cpu lookups |
| Date | 2016-02-18 21:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r3Ddp-2wj-51@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <r3cZz-oW-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <r3f1p-1O1-35@gated-at.bofh.it> <r3fb4-1S3-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <r3fkL-1Vw-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <r3fNM-2nq-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Vikas Shivappa wrote: > > Please stop top posting, finally! > > > But we have an extra static - static to avoid having it in the stack.. > > It's not about the cpu mask on the stack. The reason was that with cpumask off > stack cpumask_and_mask() requires an allocation, which then can't be used in > the starting/dying callbacks. > > Darn, you are right to remind me. > > Now, the proper solution for this stuff is to provide a library function as we > need that for several drivers. No point to duplicate that functionality. I'll > cook something up and repost the uncore/cqm set tomorrow. Second thoughts on that. cpumask_any_but() is fine as is, if we feed it topology_core_cpumask(cpu). The worst case search is two bitmap_find_next() if the first search returned cpu. Now cpumask_any_and() does a search as well, but the number of bitmap_find_next() invocations is limited to the number of sockets if we feed the cqm_cpu_mask as first argument. So for 4 or 8 sockets that's still a reasonable limit. If the people with insane large machines care, we can revisit that topic. It's still faster than for_each_online_cpu() :) Thanks, tglx
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] x86/perf/intel/cqm: Get rid of the silly for_each_cpu lookups Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-02-17 16:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/perf/intel/cqm: Get rid of the silly for_each_cpu lookups Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-02-17 17:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/perf/intel/cqm: Get rid of the silly for_each_cpu lookups Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-02-17 17:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/perf/intel/cqm: Get rid of the silly for_each_cpu lookups Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@intel.com> - 2016-02-17 19:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/perf/intel/cqm: Get rid of the silly for_each_cpu lookups Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-02-17 19:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/perf/intel/cqm: Get rid of the silly for_each_cpu lookups Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-02-17 19:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/perf/intel/cqm: Get rid of the silly for_each_cpu lookups Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@intel.com> - 2016-02-17 19:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/perf/intel/cqm: Get rid of the silly for_each_cpu lookups Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-02-17 20:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/perf/intel/cqm: Get rid of the silly for_each_cpu lookups Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-02-18 21:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/perf/intel/cqm: Get rid of the silly for_each_cpu lookups Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@intel.com> - 2016-02-19 00:20 +0100
csiph-web