From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 25 20:10:54 2007 Return-Path: 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 8811216A419 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:10:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454A613C4D9 for ; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:10:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E976146B94; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 15:10:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:10:53 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Jeff Roberson In-Reply-To: <20071219211025.T899@desktop> Message-ID: <20071225201012.S85517@fledge.watson.org> References: <20071219211025.T899@desktop> 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 List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 20:10:54 -0000 On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Jeff Roberson wrote: > 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. BTW, I notice that you declare sched_getaffinity() in the user include file, but don't reserve a system call in syscalls.master or implement it. Is this intentional? Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge