Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:28:39 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: FreeBSD current users <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: small scheduler hack/patch Message-ID: <20030710222839.GA49321@ns1.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0307101445250.40558-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <20030710214339.GA48547@ns1.xcllnt.net> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0307101445250.40558-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 10, 2003 at 03:03:41PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > it comes I think from the fact that some hardware treats things as > bitmaps. (?) I have to guess that a bitmap is a natural way to represent sets when the sets aren't large and that this is why we use bitmaps. We have a need to send an IPI to multiple CPUs, which is expressed nicely with bitmaps. > there are lots of cases where the code is doing > foreach cpu > if (cpu->mask & our_mask) > continue; /* skip ourself */ > > > which could easly be > if (cpu->number == PCPU_GET(cpu_number)) Agreed. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030710222839.GA49321>