Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:23:08 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linux compatible setaffinity. Message-ID: <18311.49715.457070.397815@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <20071219211025.T899@desktop> References: <20071219211025.T899@desktop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Thanks for working on this, Drew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?18311.49715.457070.397815>