On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Linus Torvalds > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> So anyway, I like the patch series. I just think that the final patch >> - the one that actually saves the addreses, and limits things to >> BATCH_TLBFLUSH_SIZE, should be limited. > > Oh, and another thing: > > Mel, can you please make that "struct tlbflush_unmap_batch" be just > part of "struct task_struct" rather than a pointer? > > If you are worried about the cpumask size, you could use > > cpumask_var_t cpumask; > > and > > alloc_cpumask_var(..) > ... > free_cpumask_var(..) > > for that. > > That way, sane configurations never have the allocation cost. > > (Of course, sad to say, sane configurations are probably few and far > between. At least Fedora seems to ship with a kernel where NR_CPU's is > 1024 and thus CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK=y. Oh well. What a waste of CPU > cycles that is..)
The insane part being NR_CPUS = 1024? Or that to have said number requires cpumask being dynamically allocated to avoid stack overflow? (Or both I guess). josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
