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: >=20 >> 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. >>>>=20 >>>> That's lovely. Meanwhile, people are actively using this thing. >>>=20 >>> It may not be perfect, but it's way more than half done. You might obje= ct >>> 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! >=20 > How can a library help? If you can't tell the kernel to apply a policy pe= r- > TID (procctl works by PID), it's useless for multi-threaded applications. >=20 The library would abstract away the kernel boundary concerns. So let's say w= e did what kib wanted and extended procctl to support tids, well at that poi= nt the syscalls made could be garbage collected and the library updated to c= all the correct kernel entry point.=20=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?295D42F8-6542-4665-B824-B61A7CD48282>