Re: [PATCH] cpumask: fix lg_lock/br_lock.

[Srivatsa S. Bhat]

On 03/01/2012 03:15 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> We wanted to avoid doing for_each_possible_cpu() to avoid the 
>> unnecessary performance hit. [...]
> 
> That was done at the cost of making the code rather complex.
>


Sadly, yes..

 
> The thing is, *ANY* cpu-mask loop is an utter slowpath, so the 
> "performance hit" is an overstatement. There's already dozens of 
> of for_each_possible_cpu() loops in the kernel, and it's a 
> perfectly acceptable solution in such cases.
> 
> I suspect it does not matter much now as the code appears to be 
> correct, but in general we want to opt for simpler designs for 
> rare and fragile codepaths.
> 


Ok, makes sense. And now looking back at the amount of complexity
we built into this just to avoid the for_each_possible_cpu() loop,
I wonder why we went to such lengths at all! (considering what you
said above about any cpu-mask loop..)

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/