Re: Integrating cpusets and cpu isolation [was Re: [CPUISOL] CPUisolation extensions]

[Max Krasnyansky]

Paul Jackson wrote:
> Max K wrote:
>>>     And for another thing, we already declare externs in cpumask.h for
>>>     the other, more widely used, cpu_*_map variables cpu_possible_map,
>>>     cpu_online_map, and cpu_present_map.
>> Well, to address #2 and #3 isolated map will need to be exported as well.
>> Those other maps do not really have much to do with the scheduler code.
>> That's why I think either kernel/cpumask.c or kernel/cpu.c is a better place for them.
> 
> Well, if you have need it to be exported for #2 or #3, then that's ok
> by me - export it.
> 
> I'm unaware of any kernel/cpumask.c.  If you meant lib/cpumask.c, then
> I'd prefer you not put it there, as lib/cpumask.c just contains the
> implementation details of the abstract data type cpumask_t, not any of
> its uses.  If you mean kernel/cpuset.c, then that's not a good choice
> either, as that just contains the implementation details of the cpuset
> subsystem.  You should usually define such things in one of the files
> using it, and unless there is clearly a -better- place to move the
> definition, it's usually better to just leave it where it is.

I was thinking of creating the new file kernel/cpumask.c. But it probably does not make sense 
just for the masks. I'm now thinking kernel/cpu.c is the best place for it. It contains all 
the cpu hotplug logic that deals with those maps at the very top it has stuff like

/* Serializes the updates to cpu_online_map, cpu_present_map */
static DEFINE_MUTEX(cpu_add_remove_lock);

So it seems to make sense to keep the maps in there.

Max
--
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/