Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:06:41 -0800 From: "Robert N. M. Watson" <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Randall Stewart <rrs@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r218232 - head/sys/netinet Message-ID: <58E18E40-3670-429A-A8D9-0A1C65E99CC5@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201102041356.39777.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201102031922.p13JML8i055697@svn.freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1102041731160.17623@fledge.watson.org> <4D4C45C9.4080105@freebsd.org> <201102041356.39777.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4 Feb 2011, at 10:56, John Baldwin wrote: > The difference here is that FOREACH_THREAD_IN_PROC() is just a > TAILQ_FOREACH(). The CPU iterators are more complex. >=20 > I agree that that we should have topology-aware iterators, though part = of the=20 > problem is what do you iterate? We'd have to create new sets of = package and=20 > core IDs. >=20 > For HWTHREAD_FOREACH() you can already use CPU_FOREACH(). Yeah, I have no real opinion on spelling at all. Rather, I'm of the = opinion that we need some more semantics in order to express useful = concepts, and make it easy to represent things like "one X per package", = and "find me the closest X to which I wish to enqueue this request". Robert=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?58E18E40-3670-429A-A8D9-0A1C65E99CC5>