On 11/23/2011 08:23 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
>> static void flush_all(struct kmem_cache *s)
>> {
>> - on_each_cpu(flush_cpu_slab, s, 1);
>> + cpumask_var_t cpus;
>> + struct kmem_cache_cpu *c;
>> + int cpu;
>> +
>> + if (likely(zalloc_cpumask_var(&cpus, GFP_ATOMIC))) {
>
> __GFP_NOWARN too maybe?
>
>> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>> + c = per_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab, cpu);
>> + if (c->page)
>> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpus);
>> + }
>> + on_each_cpu_mask(cpus, flush_cpu_slab, s, 1);
>> + free_cpumask_var(cpus);
>> + } else
>> + on_each_cpu(flush_cpu_slab, s, 1);
>> }
>
Since this seems to be a common pattern, how about:
zalloc_cpumask_var_or_all_online_cpus(&cpus, GFTP_ATOMIC);
...
free_cpumask_var(cpus);
The long-named function at the top of the block either returns a newly
allocated zeroed cpumask, or a static cpumask with all online cpus set.
The code in the middle is only allowed to set bits in the cpumask
(should be the common usage). free_cpumask_var() needs to check whether
the freed object is the static variable.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>