>>> On 18.06.16 at 01:13, <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote: > because it is cheaper, and there is no much point in > randomizing which cpu gets selected anyway, as such > choice will be overridden shortly after, in runq_tickle().
If it will always be overridden, why fill it in the first place? And if there are cases where it won't get overridden, you're re-introducing a preference towards lower CPU numbers, which I think is not a good idea. Can the code perhaps be rearranged to avoid the cpumask_any() when another value will subsequently get stored anyway? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
