Hello Nick,
Nick Piggin wrote:
M.Baris Demiray wrote:
[...]
Close.
Probably it would be better to take the intersection of
(group->cpumask, p->cpus_allowed), and skip the group if
the intersection is empty.
But, isn't it required for us to be allowed to run on _every_
CPU in that group. If we take intersection and continue if
that's not empty, then there could be CPUs in group that are
not allowed. Since any CPU then can be the idlest in that
group we can be assigned to a CPU that is not allowed.
Missing something?
In addition to that, do a patch for find_idlest_cpu that
skips cpus that aren't allowed. You needn't do the cpumask
check each time round the loop, again just take the
intersection of the group->cpumask and p->cpus_allowed, and
loop over that.
Will do it.
Wanna do a patch for that?
Sure. But I'll wait EOT and do read something more to fill
the gaps.
> [...]
I don't think it does anything ;)
LOL. Hope next one'll do.
Meanwhile, what is the problem with that patch? Not traversing
the CPUs correctly or continue;ing is wrong?
for_each_cpu_mask(i, group->cpumask) {
if (!cpu_isset(i, p->cpus_allowed))
continue;
}
Thanks for comments.
--
"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be
unplugged. And many of them are no inert, so hopelessly dependent
on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
Morpheus
begin:vcard
fn:M.Baris Demiray
n:Demiray;M.Baris
org:Labris Teknoloji
adr:;;Teknokent Silikon Bina No:24 ODTU;Ankara;;06531;Turkey
email;internet:[email protected]
title:Yazilim Gelistirme Uzmani
tel;work:+903122101490
tel;fax:+903122101492
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.labristeknoloji.com
version:2.1
end:vcard
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]