Re: blk_mq_update_queue_map makes an (invalid?) assumption about cpu ordering

[Jeff Moyer]

Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> 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
--
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/