Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 11:09:25 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org, atmblr@gmail.com, "Kunze, Aaron" <aaron.kunze@intel.com> Subject: Re: Setting CPU affinity to process( Freebsd smp kernel) Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0702231107580.29991@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <20070223151158.Q88189@fledge.watson.org> References: <07DDDFCFB8BE0A43BCA52E743373DBDC030C5D5A@orsmsx416.amr.corp.intel.com> <20070223151158.Q88189@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Robert Watson wrote: > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Kunze, Aaron wrote: > >> Does anyone know if this will change any time soon? For example, is anyone >> working on exposing affinity to user-space applications via extensions of >> the pthreads interface? >> >> Sorry to reply to such an old thread... > > I know of no work along these lines currently, but it's something a lot of > people would like to see happen. There's a potential for conflict between > the kernel's use of pinning and binding for kernel synchronization and the > user space affinity model, which will be entirely avoided if done right. :-) > For now, it's quite easy to add a sysctl/syscall that allows user space to > send the kernel scheduler's notion of thread binding, but this isn't really > the right approach. As I understand it, some systems support setting CPU > affinity for a thread as a set of CPUs it is willing to run on ? I know Solaris has processor_bind(2) and pset_bind(2): http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-5167/6mbb2jaeu?a=expand#P -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0702231107580.29991>