On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 01:16:50PM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 1:50 AM Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Aside from the comments Yury made, on how all this is better in
> > bitmap_parselist(), how about doing s/last/N/ here? For me something
> > like: "4-N" reads much saner than "4-last".
> >
> > Also, it might make sense to teach all this about core/node topology,
> > but that's going to be messy. Imagine something like "Core1-CoreN" or
> > "Nore1-NodeN" to mean the mask all/{Core,Node}0.
>
> If you just want to teach bitmap_parselist() to "s/Core0/0-4", I think
> it's doable if we add a hook to a proper subsystem in bitmap_parselist().
>
> > And that is another feature that seems to be missing from parselist,
> > all/except.
>
> We already support groups in a range. I think it partially covers the
> proposed all/except.
>
> Can you share examples on what you miss?
The obvious one is the "all/Core0" example above, which would be
equivalent to "Core1-CoreN".
Another case that I don't think we can do today is something like, give
me SMT0 of each core.
I don't really see the use of the ranges thing, CPU enumeration just
isn't sane like that. Also, I should really add that randomization pass
to the CPU enumeration :-)
