On 01/01/2012 06:12 PM, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: > > > > 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. > > Thanks for the feedback and advice! I totally agree the repeating > pattern needs abstracting. > > I ended up chosing to try a different abstraction though - basically a wrapper > on_each_cpu_cond that gets a predicate function to run per CPU to > build the mask > to send the IPI to. It seems cleaner to me not having to mess with > free_cpumask_var > and it abstracts more of the general pattern. > This converts the algorithm to O(NR_CPUS) from a potentially lower complexity algorithm. Also, the existing algorithm may not like to be driven by cpu number. Both are true for kvm. -- 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>