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-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
