A few code details (still working on more substantive reply):
+ /* An isolated cpuset has to be exclusive */
+ if ((is_cpu_isolated(trial) && !is_cpu_exclusive(cur))
+ || (!is_cpu_exclusive(trial) && is_cpu_isolated(cur)))
+ return -EINVAL;
Is the above code equivalant to what the comment states:
if (is_cpu_isolated(trial) <= is_cpu_exclusive(trial))
return -EINVAL;
+ t = old_parent = *par;
+ cpus_or(all_map, cs->cpus_allowed, cs->isolated_map);
+
+ /* If cpuset empty or top_cpuset, return */
+ if (cpus_empty(all_map) || par == NULL)
+ return;
If the (par == NULL) check succeeds, then perhaps the earlier (*par)
dereference will have oopsed first?
+ struct cpuset *par = cs->parent, t, old_parent;
Looks like 't' was chosen to be a one-char variable name, to keep some
lines below within 80 columns. I'd do the same myself. But this leaves
a non-symmetrical naming pattern for the new and old parent cpuset values.
Perhaps the following would work better?
struct cpuset *parptr;
struct cpuset o, n; /* old and new parent cpuset values */
+static void update_cpu_domains(struct cpuset *cs, cpumask_t old_map)
Could old_map be passed as a (const cpumask_t *)? The stack space of
this code, just for cpumask_t's (see the old and new above) is getting
large for (really) big systems.
+ /* Make the change */
+ par->cpus_allowed = t.cpus_allowed;
+ par->isolated_map = t.isolated_map;
Why don't you need to propogate upward this change to the parents
cpus_allowed and isolated_map? If a parents isolated_map grows (or
shrinks), doesn't that affect every ancestor, all the way to the top
cpuset?
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1.650.933.1373,
1.925.600.0401
-
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/
