On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 04:36:01PM -0600, Jack Steiner wrote: > Are you suggesting that we remove the #ifdef OR hide the code > in a function that, depending on config options, may or may not do anything? Yes. And I wonder whether we should just do it unconditionally, but I'm not really sure. > > > + if (!cpu_isset(smp_processor_id(), mm->cpu_vm_mask)) > > > + cpu_set(smp_processor_id(), mm->cpu_vm_mask); > > > > cpu_test_and_set()? > > On IA64 (not sure about other architectures), cpu_test_and_set will always > set the bit regardless of it's previous state. That causes the cacheline containing > the bitmask to be bounced between cpus - possibly unnecessarily. For most Ok. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Thu Jan 29 08:41:09 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:21 EST