lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: blk_mq_update_queue_map makes an (invalid?) assumption about cpu ordering
Date
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> writes:

>> This assumes that the first_sibling is listed before any other siblings,
>> which I don't believe is true. I don't think you get any guaranteed
>> ordering in that cpu_possible_mask.
>>
>> ... or did I miss something?
>
> That's correct, it's assuming the first sibling is the lowest numbered
> one. Are there cases where that would not be correct? I was sort of
> assuming that was what "first" meant here.

Yeah, you're right. I hadn't read down the call chain:

static int get_first_sibling(unsigned int cpu)
ret = cpumask_first(topology_thread_cpumask(cpu));

Nothing to see here, move along...

-Jeff


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-15 20:41    [W:0.031 / U:2.656 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site