Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:52:33 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linux compatible setaffinity. Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0801111550080.8359@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <18311.49715.457070.397815@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> References: <20071219211025.T899@desktop> <18311.49715.457070.397815@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > Jeff Roberson writes: > > I have implemented a linux compatible sched_setaffinity() call which is > > somewhat crippled. This allows a userspace process to supply a bitmask of > > processors which it will run on. I have copied the linux interface such > > that it should be api compatible because I believe it is a sensible > > interface and they beat us to it by 3 years. > > I'm somewhat surprised that this has not hit the tree yet. What > happened? Wasn't the consensus that it was a good thing? > > FWIW, I was too busy to reply at the time, but I agree that the Apple > interface is nice. However, sometimes one needs a hard CPU binding > interface like this one, and I don't see any reason to defer adding > this interface in favor of the Apple one, since they are somewhat > orthogonal. I'd be strongly in favor of having a hard CPU binding > interface. I favor the Solaris API which allows you to specify either a process or a thread (LWP) and a processor set. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0801111550080.8359>