Cc: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...>, Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...>, Paul Menage <menage@...>, Paul Jackson <pj@...>, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...>, <miaox@...>, <rostedt@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...>
I didn't update it, and right now I'm just merging too much (and
discussing the merges) to have time.
The patch really needs to have some scheduler person look at the use fo
cpu_active_map - I was kind of hoping that Ingo would.
The other thing I wish somebody would at least double-check (and
preferably just remove) is the !CPU_HOTPLUG special case. For that case, I
literally did
#define cpu_active_map cpu_online_map
and just depended on the fact that the few cases that touched
cpu_online_map even when CPU_HOTPLUG was disabled would do
if (cpu_online(cpu))
set_cpu(cpu, cpu_active_map);
(or something - I ended up discaring the patch as I was doing the whole
2.6.26 release, so I don't even have it in front of me right now, just in
my email archives and in my memory).
And quite frankly, I don't think that was a good idea. It was exactly the
sort of "subtle cleverness" that I myself argue against. So I think that
aliasing of cpu_active/online_map was a mistake - it was kind of cute, but
there's really no good reason to do it. It's not like that one CPU map
wastes any memory, and the special-case simply isn't worth it.
Linus
--
