Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 22:44:14 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> Subject: Re: Linux compatible setaffinity. Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0801122240510.15683@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <20080112170831.A957@desktop> References: <20071219211025.T899@desktop> <18311.49715.457070.397815@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20080112182948.F36731@fledge.watson.org> <20080112170831.A957@desktop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008, Jeff Roberson wrote: > Now, there is one problem with the linux api that I want to discuss before I > commit it. The current patch always works on curthread. However, the api > allows for setting the binding of a pid. I believe, although I'm not > certain, that pids and tids in linux are in the same number space. It's not > clear to me whether you can set an affinity for an entire process and have it > effect an individual thread or whether you set it on a thread by thread > basis. When supplying a non-curproc pid do you bind all threads in the > target process? > > Are our tids and pids in the same number space? And are they available to > application programmers? I haven't followed that very carefully. I believe marcel made tids and pids disjoint so that any pid is never equal to any tid. But regardless, I don't think we want to rely on that. I would prefer the Solaris approach of specifying what we want (pid, tid, jail id, etc) as an argument in the API so there is no confusion. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.0801122240510.15683>