Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:34:37 -0700 | From | Paul Jackson <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Patch for isolated scheduler domains |
| |
You should double check my logic, but I think a couple of the cpumask calculations can be tightened up, as follows.
Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com> wrote: > > + cpumask_t cpu_nonisolated; > + > + cpus_and(cpu_nonisolated, cpu_possible_map, isol_cpumask); > + cpus_complement(cpu_nonisolated, cpu_nonisolated); > + cpus_and(cpu_nonisolated, cpu_nonisolated, cpu_possible_map);
cpumask_t cpu_nonisolated; cpus_andnot(cpu_nonisolated, cpu_possible_map, isol_cpumas);
> + cpumask_t tmp = node_to_cpumask(i); > + cpumask_t nodemask; > + ... > + cpus_and(nodemask, tmp, cpu_nonisolated);
cpumask_t nodemask; ... cpus_and(nodemask, node_to_cpumask(i), cpu_nonisolated);
-- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.650.933.1373 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |