From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jan 11 20:52:43 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 8663316A46D
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:52:43 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E0A713C455
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:52:43 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
	by mail.netplex.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id
	m0BKqXnc001974; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:52:33 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net)
X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by
	milter-greylist-4.0 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]);
	Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:52:33 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:52:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
To: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>
In-Reply-To: <18311.49715.457070.397815@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0801111550080.8359@sea.ntplx.net>
References: <20071219211025.T899@desktop>
	<18311.49715.457070.397815@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Linux compatible setaffinity.
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:52:43 -0000

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