On 9/29/21 10:54 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2021, Dongli Zhang wrote: >> >> On 9/27/21 12:22 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote: >> Perhaps a linked list is more suitable to here (when there are 1024 cpus and the >> task is bound to both 1 and 1022) ... to pre-save the possible cpus in a list >> and to only move to next cpu in the list for each iteration. >> >> However, I think min_cpu/max_cpu is good enough for selttests case. > > Yeah, it's annoying that there's no CPU_SET_FOR_EACH so that x86 could optimize > it to use BSF :-/ > >> Would you please let me know if you would like to send above with my >> Reported-by, or if you would like me to send with your Suggested-by. > > If you don't mind, I'll send a patch, I want to fiddle with the migration loop to > see if I can make it less magical/ugly. > I do not mind. Feel free to send the patch with my "Reported-by: Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx>". Thank you very much! Dongli Zhang
