Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1402731
| From | Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCHv2] rcu: tree: correctly handle sparse possible CPUs |
| Date | 2016-05-18 08:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rA2Q9-6EU-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rzwng-2Fv-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <rzKqf-3kb-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <rzSxs-7q-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:01:06PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:22:10AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > /* > > + * Iterate over all possible CPUs in a leaf RCU node. > > + */ > > +#define for_each_leaf_node_possible_cpu(rnp, cpu) \ > > + for ((cpu) = rnp->grplo; \ > > + cpu <= rnp->grphi; \ > > + cpu = cpumask_next((cpu), cpu_possible_mask)) > > What if the rnp->grplo corresponds to a non-existent CPU? Good point, I had evidently not considered that. > Would something like this handle that possibility? > > +#define for_each_leaf_node_possible_cpu(rnp, cpu) \ > + for ((cpu) = cpumask_next(rnp->grplo - 1, cpu_possible_mask); \ > + cpu <= rnp->grphi; \ > + cpu = cpumask_next((cpu), cpu_possible_mask)) > > Or maybe like this, with less duplicated code but very strange style: > > +#define for_each_leaf_node_possible_cpu(rnp, cpu) \ > + for ((cpu) = rnp->grplo - 1; \ > + cpu = cpumask_next((cpu), cpu_possible_mask), cpu <= rnp->grphi; 1) > > The first one is probably far better, assuming that it works, but I could > not resist inflicting the second one on you. ;-) :) Those both look like they should work, I'll fold the former in. > > +/* > > + * Iterate over all possible CPUs in a leaf RCU node, at each step providing a > > + * bit for comparison against rcu_node bitmasks. > > + */ > > +#define for_each_leaf_node_possible_cpu_bit(rnp, cpu, bit) \ > > + for ((cpu) = rnp->grplo, (bit) = 1; \ > > + cpu <= rnp->grphi; \ > > + cpu = cpumask_next((cpu), cpu_possible_mask), \ > > + (bit) = 1UL << (cpu - rnp->grplo)) > > Same question here. Likewise. I'll also see about fixing the build issue you spotted in the other reply; that appears to be a typo (missing 'possible_' in the macro invocation). I'm away from my development machine at the moment, so that may not appear until next week. Thanks, Mark.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] rcu: tree: correctly handle sparse possible CPUs Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-05-16 18:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] rcu: tree: correctly handle sparse possible CPUs "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-05-16 21:30 +0200
[PATCHv2] rcu: tree: correctly handle sparse possible CPUs Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-05-17 12:30 +0200
Re: [PATCHv2] rcu: tree: correctly handle sparse possible CPUs "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-05-17 21:10 +0200
Re: [PATCHv2] rcu: tree: correctly handle sparse possible CPUs Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-05-18 08:10 +0200
Re: [PATCHv2] rcu: tree: correctly handle sparse possible CPUs Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-05-18 14:10 +0200
Re: [PATCHv2] rcu: tree: correctly handle sparse possible CPUs Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-05-18 20:20 +0200
Re: [PATCHv2] rcu: tree: correctly handle sparse possible CPUs "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-05-18 20:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] rcu: tree: correctly handle sparse possible CPUs Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@gmail.com> - 2016-05-18 17:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] rcu: tree: correctly handle sparse possible CPUs "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-05-18 20:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] rcu: tree: correctly handle sparse possible CPUs Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2016-05-18 20:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] rcu: tree: correctly handle sparse possible CPUs "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2016-05-18 20:50 +0200
csiph-web