On Wed, 20 May 2015, Vikas Shivappa wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 18 May 2015, Vikas Shivappa wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 May 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > +static inline bool intel_rdt_update_cpumask(int cpu)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > You must be kidding.
> > >
> > > the rapl and cqm use similar code. You want me to keep a seperate package
> > > mask
> > > for this code which not would be that frequent at all ?
> >
> > You find for everything a place where you copied your stuff from
> > without thinking about it, right?
> >
> > Other people dessperately try to fix the cpu online times which are
> > more and more interesting the larger the systems become. So it might
> > be a good idea to come up with a proper fast implementation which can
> > be used everywhere instead of blindly copying code.
>
> Ok , i can try to do this as a seperate patch after the cache allocation to
Hell no. We do preparatory patches first. I'm not believing in 'can
try' promises.
> get a support for faster implementation for traversing package and cpus in the
> packages which can be used by everyone. we would need to start from scratch
> with having packagemask_t equivalent to cpumask_t. hope that is fair ?
Yes, that's what I want to see.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
