Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:18:33 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@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.4.64.0702231617020.1267@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <45DF4CBA.1010906@elischer.org> References: <07DDDFCFB8BE0A43BCA52E743373DBDC030C5D5A@orsmsx416.amr.corp.intel.com> <20070223151158.Q88189@fledge.watson.org> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0702231107580.29991@sea.ntplx.net> <07DDDFCFB8BE0A43BCA52E743373DBDC03102190@orsmsx416.amr.corp.intel.com> <45DF4CBA.1010906@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Julian Elischer wrote: > Kunze, Aaron wrote: >> Thanks for the info. The Linux equivalent would be sched_setaffinity >> which takes a bitmask as input, allowing the user to define which >> processors will run a particular thread. Here's a link: >> >> http://ibm5.ma.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/man-cgi?sched_setaffinity+2 >> >>>> 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 >> >> Can you elaborate on this? Some of my colleagues and I are considering >> tackling this and would like to avoid such pitfalls, if possible. > > [...] > >>> >>> I know Solaris has processor_bind(2) and pset_bind(2): >>> >>> http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-5167/6mbb2jaeu?a=expand#P > > I prefer the linux model but it does limit you to some set number of > procesors. > it looks however that the solaris interface doesn't allow 'sets' of > processors but > just allows you to specify a single processor. Why do you say that? Solaris has pset_bind(2) as well as other pset_foo(). -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0702231617020.1267>