On Mon, 27 Dec 2010, Ben Blum wrote: > > I'm not sure what the benefit of defining it as a macro would be. You're > > defining these statically allocated nodemasks so they have file scope, I > > hope (so they can be shared amongst the users who synchronize on > > cgroup_lock() already). > > In the attach() case, yes, but in other cases I was thinking they could > be put on the stack if CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT < 8, and static but still > per-function otherwise. Or should all the functions share the same > global nodemask? > I think it would be appropriate to use a shared nodemask with file scope whenever you have cgroup_lock() to avoid the unnecessary kmalloc() even with GFP_KERNEL. Cpusets are traditionally used on very large machines in the first place, so there is a higher likelihood that CONFIG_NODES_SHIFT > 8 whenever CONFIG_CPUSETS is enabled. All users of NODEMASK_ALLOC() should be protected by cgroup_lock() other than cpuset_sprintf_memlist(), right? That should be the only remaining user of NODEMASK_ALLOC() and works well since it can return -ENOMEM. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
