Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 00:36:07 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> To: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@me.com> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: CFT/CFR: NUMA policy branch Message-ID: <295D42F8-6542-4665-B824-B61A7CD48282@mu.org> In-Reply-To: <1443707.QHq1OS6BQP@akita> References: <CAJ-Vmo=SnqXTF5m65haKqrVf699zinyXs%2BQdvR6V88CW7vooCw@mail.gmail.com> <2926903.YAk7qUEGf9@akita> <559CB61F.2070301@freebsd.org> <1443707.QHq1OS6BQP@akita>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Jul 7, 2015, at 11:44 PM, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@me.com> wrote: > >> 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. > The library would abstract away the kernel boundary concerns. So let's say we did what kib wanted and extended procctl to support tids, well at that point the syscalls made could be garbage collected and the library updated to call the correct kernel entry point.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?295D42F8-6542-4665-B824-B61A7CD48282>