Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:09:39 -0800 From: "Brian McGinty" <brian.mcginty@gmail.com> To: "David Xu" <davidxu@freebsd.org> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Linux compatible setaffinity. Message-ID: <601bffc40712241909t10e6f3k8e7940d387b6efc2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <476F0EE5.1040404@freebsd.org> References: <20071219211025.T899@desktop> <476B1973.6070902@freebsd.org> <20071222183700.L5866@fledge.watson.org> <476F0EE5.1040404@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 23, 2007 5:44 PM, David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Robert Watson wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, David Xu wrote: > > > >> I don't say no to these interfaces, but there is a need to tell user > >> which cpus are sharing cache, or memory distance is closest enough, > >> and which cpus are servicing interrupts, e.g, network interrupt and > >> disks etc, etc, otherwise, blindly setting cpu affinity mask only can > >> shoot itself in the foot. > > > > While the Mac OS X API is pretty Mach-specific, it's worth taking a look > > at their recently-announced affinity API: > > > > http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/Performance/RN-AffinityAPI/index.html > > > > > > Robert N M Watson > > Computer Laboratory > > University of Cambridge > > > > > I like the interfaces, it is more flexible. I agree. May I as k what's being planned? It's Jeffs' call finally I think. Brian.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?601bffc40712241909t10e6f3k8e7940d387b6efc2>