Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:11:34 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linux compatible setaffinity. Message-ID: <18311.56221.562219.702112@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0801111550080.8359@sea.ntplx.net> References: <20071219211025.T899@desktop> <18311.49715.457070.397815@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0801111550080.8359@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Daniel Eischen writes: > 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. Honestly, I don't care what the API is. I just want a way to do hard CPU binding. Since Jeff has a patch, I'm strongly in favor of doing it his way. A bird in the hand beats 2 in the bush. :) Drew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?18311.56221.562219.702112>