Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 23:44:13 -0700 From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@me.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: CFT/CFR: NUMA policy branch Message-ID: <1443707.QHq1OS6BQP@akita> In-Reply-To: <559CB61F.2070301@freebsd.org> References: <CAJ-Vmo=SnqXTF5m65haKqrVf699zinyXs%2BQdvR6V88CW7vooCw@mail.gmail.com> <2926903.YAk7qUEGf9@akita> <559CB61F.2070301@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 07 July 2015 22:33:19 Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 7/7/15 7:43 PM, Rui Paulo wrote: > > On Tuesday 07 July 2015 15:53:18 Adrian Chadd wrote: > >>> I did not read further, the patch is half-done at best. > >> > >> That's lovely. Meanwhile, people are actively using this thing. > > > > It may not be perfect, but it's way more than half done. You might object > > to introducing the syscalls, but procctl is still annoyingly limited. > (not yelling at you Rui)... but really... Is that the problem?!!? Just > write a userland library to abstract the kernel interface! How can a library help? If you can't tell the kernel to apply a policy per- TID (procctl works by PID), it's useless for multi-threaded applications. -- Rui Paulo
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1443707.QHq1OS6BQP>