Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] getcpu_cache system call: cache CPU number of running thread
From: Mathieu Desnoyers
Date: Wed Jan 27 2016 - 12:37:04 EST
----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 12:24 PM, Thomas Gleixner tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Josh Triplett wrote:
>> With the dynamic allocation removed, this seems sensible to me. One
>> minor nit: s/int32_t/uint32_t/g, since a location intended to hold a CPU
>> number should never need to hold a negative number.
> You try to block the future of computing: https://lwn.net/Articles/638673/
Besides impossible architectures, there is actually a use-case for
signedness here. It makes it possible to initialize the cpu number
cache to a negative value, e.g. -1, in userspace. Then, a check for
value < 0 can be used to figure out cases where the getcpu_cache
system call is not implemented, and where a fallback (vdso or getcpu
syscall) needs to be used.
This is why I have chosen a signed type for the cpu cache so far.