On 25/04/23 22:26, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 10:54:56AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> On 19/04/23 22:19, Yury Norov wrote:
>> > +/*
>> > + * sched_numa_find_next_cpu() - given the NUMA topology, find the next cpu
>> > + * cpumask: cpumask to find a cpu from
>> > + * cpu: current cpu
>> > + * node: local node
>> > + * hop: (in/out) indicates distance order of current CPU to a local node
>> > + *
>> > + * The function searches for next cpu at a given NUMA distance, indicated
>> > + * by hop, and if nothing found, tries to find CPUs at a greater distance,
>> > + * starting from the beginning.
>> > + *
>> > + * Return: cpu, or >= nr_cpu_ids when nothing found.
>> > + */
>> > +int sched_numa_find_next_cpu(const struct cpumask *cpus, int cpu, int node, unsigned int *hop)
>> > +{
>> > + unsigned long *cur, *prev;
>> > + struct cpumask ***masks;
>> > + unsigned int ret;
>> > +
>> > + if (*hop >= sched_domains_numa_levels)
>> > + return nr_cpu_ids;
>> > +
>> > + masks = rcu_dereference(sched_domains_numa_masks);
>> > + cur = cpumask_bits(masks[*hop][node]);
>> > + if (*hop == 0)
>> > + ret = find_next_and_bit(cpumask_bits(cpus), cur, nr_cpu_ids, cpu);
>> > + else {
>> > + prev = cpumask_bits(masks[*hop - 1][node]);
>> > + ret = find_next_and_andnot_bit(cpumask_bits(cpus), cur, prev, nr_cpu_ids, cpu);
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + if (ret < nr_cpu_ids)
>> > + return ret;
>> > +
>> > + *hop += 1;
>> > + return sched_numa_find_next_cpu(cpus, 0, node, hop);
>>
>> sched_domains_numa_levels is a fairly small number, so the recursion depth
>> isn't something we really need to worry about - still, the iterative
>> variant of this is fairly straightforward to get to:
>
> This is a tail recursion. Compiler normally converts it into the loop just
> as well. At least, my GCC does.
I'd hope so in 2023! I still prefer the iterative approach as I find it
more readable, but I'm not /too/ strongly attached to it.
