On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 03:04:32AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 10:16:19AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2024 at 01:56:47AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > + /* Set from highest CPU down. */
> > > + for (cpu = ncores - 1; cpu >= 0; cpu--) {
> > > + CPU_ZERO_S(setsz, setp);
> > > + CPU_SET_S(cpu, setsz, setp);
> > Is there some particular reason to go from the highest CPU number down?
> > Not that it super matters but the default would be to iterate from 0 and
> > there's a comment but it just says the what not the why.
> I was arbitrarily picking a direction and all the examples I could find
> started at 0, so this would be more (?) out of the way. :P
> Without a cpu cgroup, I can't _exclude_ the pinned CPU from other
> processes, so I was pretending the last CPU will be less likely to be
> used.
That feels like it should go in a comment so it's a bit less mysterious.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
