Re: OOPS: 2.6.16-rc6 cpufreq_conservative



On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:

The thing is, we could do _so_ much better if we just fixed the "calling
convention" for that loop.

Actually, looking at it a bit more, I think we can do better even
_without_ fixing the "calling convention".

Namely like this.

This should make the "NR_CPUS <= 16" case have a _much_ simpler loop.

I picked "16" at random. The loop is much faster and much simpler (it
doesn't use complex instructions like "find first bit", but the downside
is that if the CPU mask is very sparse, it will take more of those (very
simple) iterations to figure out that it's empty.

I suspect the "16" could be raised to 32 (at which point it would cover
all the default vaules), but somebody should probably take a look at
how much this shrinks the kernel.

I have to admit that it's a bit evil to leave a dangling "else" in a
macro, but it beautifully handles the "must be followed by exactly one C
statement" requirement of the old macro ;)

So instead of calling it "evil", let's just say that it's "creative
macro-writing".

(Btw, we could make this even cleaner by making the non-SMP case define
"cpu_isset()" to 1 - at that point the UP and the "low CPU count" #defines
could be merged into one).

Linus

--
diff --git a/include/linux/cpumask.h b/include/linux/cpumask.h
index 60e56c6..a659f42 100644
--- a/include/linux/cpumask.h
+++ b/include/linux/cpumask.h
@@ -313,11 +313,17 @@ static inline void __cpus_remap(cpumask_
bitmap_remap(dstp->bits, srcp->bits, oldp->bits, newp->bits, nbits);
}

-#if NR_CPUS > 1
+#if NR_CPUS > 16
#define for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, mask) \
for ((cpu) = first_cpu(mask); \
(cpu) < NR_CPUS; \
(cpu) = next_cpu((cpu), (mask)))
+#elif NR_CPUS > 1
+#define for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, mask) \
+ for ((cpu) = 0; (cpu) < NR_CPUS; (cpu)++) \
+ if (!cpu_isset(cpu, mask)) \
+ continue; \
+ else
#else /* NR_CPUS == 1 */
#define for_each_cpu_mask(cpu, mask) for ((cpu) = 0; (cpu) < 1; (cpu)++)
#endif /* NR_CPUS */
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Calling a Macro from another workbook
    ... That would be a good test to try (calling a known safe macro instead). ... you could try moving the Application.Run outside the loop. ... the user has to open up multiple versions of this workbook and call ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.programming)
  • Re: Looping a macro
    ... the loop 20 times. ... You could, instead of calling the macro over and over, ... Sub total_recall ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.misc)
  • Re: Managed vs Unmanaged Bare Bones Performance Test
    ... just the basic stuff inside the CLR i.e. function calling ... both call a function passing an int by value from inside a for loop. ... //record the overhead for calling the performance counter API ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework)
  • Re: PC Word Macro Not Working in Mac Word
    ... I wrote my original in Mac Word, ... .Execute Replace:=wdReplaceAll ... Do ' A post-test loop! ... I did a test macro with basically just the code you ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office.word)
  • RE: Loop Training: Password Finder
    ... 'The cycles on your g loop would be phenominal in your case. ... Dim Solution As String ... I have a macro below, ... > Exit Sub ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.programming)
Loading