Mike Travis wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>> * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ingo,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:00:55 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>> -#define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) ({ *get_cpu_mask(cpu); })
>>>>>>> +#define cpumask_of_cpu(cpu) (*get_cpu_mask(cpu))
>>>>>> hm, i'm wondering - is this a compiler bug?
>>>>> Or maybe a deficiency in such an old compiler (v3.4.5) but the fix
>>>>> makes sense anyway, right?
>>>> yeah, i was just wondering.
>>> in linux/README
>>>
>>> COMPILING the kernel:
>>>
>>> - Make sure you have at least gcc 3.2 available.
>>> For more information, refer to Documentation/Changes.
>>>
>>> So, if 3.4.5 is old, Should we change readme?
>> the fix is simple enough.
>>
>> but the question is, wont it generate huge artificial stackframes with
>> CONFIG_MAXSMP and NR_CPUS=4096? Maybe it is unable to figure out and
>> simplify the arithmetics there - or something like that.
>>
>> Ingo
>
> I've looked at stack frames quite extensively and usually they are
> not generated unless you explicitly use a named cpumask variable,
> pass a cpumask by value, expect a cpumask function return, create
> an initializer that contains a cpumask field, and (probably a couple
> more I missed).
>
> Almost all others are done efficiently via pointers or simple
> struct copies:
>
> cpus_xxx(*cpumask_of_cpu(), ...
> struct->cpumask_var = *cpumask_of_cpu()
> global_cpumask_var = *cpumask_of_cpu()
> etc.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
Geez, I edited the above after I first used *cpumask_var and didn't
get the semantics right!
cpus_xxx(cpumask_of_cpu(), ...
struct->cpumask_var = cpumask_of_cpu()
global_cpumask_var = cpumask_of_cpu()
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
