From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754090AbbK3N5j (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:57:39 -0500 Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com ([195.59.15.196]:28271 "EHLO mailapp01.imgtec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753288AbbK3N5i (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:57:38 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/19] genirq: Add new struct ipi_mask and helper functions To: Thomas Gleixner References: <1448453217-3874-1-git-send-email-qais.yousef@imgtec.com> <1448453217-3874-5-git-send-email-qais.yousef@imgtec.com> <565C3771.7040202@imgtec.com> CC: , , , , , From: Qais Yousef Message-ID: <565C55CF.8080702@imgtec.com> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 13:57:35 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [192.168.154.94] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/30/2015 01:11 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2015, Qais Yousef wrote: >> >> Yes it would be much better to reuse it but wouldn't the runtime checks >> against nr_cpu_ids create problems especially when CPUMASK_ON_STACK is >> defined? > nr_cpu_ids == find_last_bit(cpumask_bits(cpu_possible_mask),NR_CPUS) + 1; > > OK. I can partially see your point. I can't see how the extra coprocessor bits will be set in cpu_possible_mask and whether this will affect normal linux operation (ie: will it think it can bring that cpu up or migrate irqs to it?). Since you don't see an issue with it, it must be just a missing gap in my knowledge that I'll fill while doing this work. Thanks, Qais From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com ([195.59.15.196]:42867 "EHLO mailapp01.imgtec.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27007943AbbK3N5mjhvX- (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:57:42 +0100 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/19] genirq: Add new struct ipi_mask and helper functions References: <1448453217-3874-1-git-send-email-qais.yousef@imgtec.com> <1448453217-3874-5-git-send-email-qais.yousef@imgtec.com> <565C3771.7040202@imgtec.com> From: Qais Yousef Message-ID: <565C55CF.8080702@imgtec.com> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 13:57:35 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jason@lakedaemon.net, marc.zyngier@arm.com, jiang.liu@linux.intel.com, ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org Message-ID: <20151130135735.t1_YamQ1wf46lW8vuJgQrgMYpBd2-NW_dYJH7pUbabE@z> On 11/30/2015 01:11 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 30 Nov 2015, Qais Yousef wrote: >> >> Yes it would be much better to reuse it but wouldn't the runtime checks >> against nr_cpu_ids create problems especially when CPUMASK_ON_STACK is >> defined? > nr_cpu_ids == find_last_bit(cpumask_bits(cpu_possible_mask),NR_CPUS) + 1; > > OK. I can partially see your point. I can't see how the extra coprocessor bits will be set in cpu_possible_mask and whether this will affect normal linux operation (ie: will it think it can bring that cpu up or migrate irqs to it?). Since you don't see an issue with it, it must be just a missing gap in my knowledge that I'll fill while doing this work. Thanks, Qais