On Sunday July 30, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:42:34 +1000
> NeilBrown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > +static int
> > +svc_pool_map_init_percpu(struct svc_pool_map *m)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int maxpools = num_possible_cpus();
> > + unsigned int pidx = 0;
> > + unsigned int cpu;
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + err = svc_pool_map_alloc_arrays(m, maxpools);
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
> > +
> > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > + BUG_ON(pidx > maxpools);
> > + m->to_pool[cpu] = pidx;
> > + m->pool_to[pidx] = cpu;
> > + pidx++;
> > + }
>
> That isn't right - it assumes that cpu_possible_map is not sparse. If it
> is sparse, we allocate undersized pools and then overindex them.
I don't think so.
At this point we are largely counting the number of online cpus
(in pidx (pool index) - this is returned). The two-way mapping
to_pool and pool_to provides a mapping between the possible-sparse cpu
list and a dense list of pool indexes.
If further cpus come on line they will be automatically included in
pool-0. (as to_pool[n] will still be zero).
Does that make it at all clearer?
Thanks,
NeilBrown
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[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]
