Re: [RFC] Patch for isolated scheduler domains

[Paul Jackson]

You should double check my logic, but I think a couple of the cpumask
calculations can be tightened up, as follows.

Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> +	cpumask_t cpu_nonisolated;
> +
> +	cpus_and(cpu_nonisolated, cpu_possible_map, isol_cpumask);
> +	cpus_complement(cpu_nonisolated, cpu_nonisolated);
> +	cpus_and(cpu_nonisolated, cpu_nonisolated, cpu_possible_map);

	cpumask_t cpu_nonisolated;
	cpus_andnot(cpu_nonisolated, cpu_possible_map, isol_cpumas);



> +		cpumask_t tmp = node_to_cpumask(i);
> +		cpumask_t nodemask;
> +		...
> +		cpus_and(nodemask, tmp, cpu_nonisolated);

		cpumask_t nodemask;
		...
		cpus_and(nodemask, node_to_cpumask(i), cpu_nonisolated);

-- 
                          I won't rest till it's the best ...
                          Programmer, Linux Scalability
                          Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.650.933.1373
-
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/