From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 11 20:38:31 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4E016A419 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:38:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kip.macy@gmail.com) Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.181]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3F9913C442 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:38:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kip.macy@gmail.com) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k17so2099137waf.3 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:38:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=7NTYT0AZLIeT0UzGPsk/Y6qZydwXNnFM8QrMG+3Ko5A=; b=RjAsDvyoLqOM3kEeJmZaTB3w9lSeluvFbtGmMgsNkjz1R5slzc8bBB9e2PxIE7eI5yQ0jfsvKFUvVzK1dHncGHAC+HKfjREX5hTD3Z1jIP3VoFk2ZXJ/rrCI8rcl69DSMimHBjYtG0SddH5C1tg0PxbcRgkOpy8BGCuOb3ZtzvI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=PddqmrLCNsOKUqK0STh2VFYhENclHX/3Q43eDWayxkV4F3JFWH7eGD8ngECcDH+1duFLEN0mxoSwpE0vTePyN/24ryjeouKgEnLLOje6TtQ10YtWTzgV3zk/r6Q0HO5YcNMd4jebOYg6y/OWJXH04v8axkFGUXTI1ZHjqvz3Ul4= Received: by 10.114.36.1 with SMTP id j1mr4150016waj.35.1200083911194; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:38:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.255.11 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:38:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:38:31 -0800 From: "Kip Macy" To: "Andrew Gallatin" In-Reply-To: <18311.49715.457070.397815@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20071219211025.T899@desktop> <18311.49715.457070.397815@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linux compatible setaffinity. X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:38:31 -0000 On Jan 11, 2008 11:23 AM, 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. > > Thanks for working on this, > Regardless of what the "optimal" API is, we should support this for the benefit of Linux applications. Last I looked more applications were developed on Linux than on FreeBSD. Can someone give a good reason why this should not go in? -Kip