Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:37:58 -1000 (HST) From: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, arch@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cpuset and affinity implementation Message-ID: <20080226233645.D920@desktop> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0802262341010.11586@sea.ntplx.net> References: <20080220175532.Q920@desktop> <20080220213253.A920@desktop> <20080221092011.J52922@fledge.watson.org> <20080222121253.N920@desktop> <20080222231245.GA28788@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20080222134923.M920@desktop> <20080223194047.GB38485@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20080223111659.K920@desktop> <20080223213507.GD39699@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> <20080224001902.J920@desktop> <20080225231747.GT99258@elvis.mu.org> <20080225143222.B920@desktop> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0802252003060.3971@sea.ntplx.net> <20080225160433.P920@desktop> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0802252110280.3971@sea.ntplx.net> <20080225194320.V920@desktop> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0802260121160.6723@sea.ntplx.net> <20080225213434.L920@desktop> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0802261021560.8556@sea.ntplx.net> <20080226121251.V920@desktop> <Pine.GSO.4.64.0802262341010.11586@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Jeff Roberson wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Daniel Eischen wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Jeff Roberson wrote: >>> >>>> See above discussion. I'm not sure what you mean by 'default' cpuset >>>> here. >>> >>> I imagine the 'default' cpuset as the system's default cpuset, >>> in lieu of any administratively created cpusets and bindings >>> for the process (inherited or explicit). >> >> My opinion is that if we decide that it's important to assign numbered sets >> to tids we need then to allow cpuset_getid to return multiple ids for >> WHICH_PID. > > Maybe there shouldn't be WHICH_PID. Perhaps it should be called > WHICH_ALLTIDS. Then it might appear more expected if > cpuset_getid(WHICH_ALLTIDS, ...) returned multiple cpusets. > I realize this is just playing with words, and I do prefer > WHICH_PID :-) Are there any objections to commiting this functionality in its current form? I think there is the possibility for further debate and refinement but I believe the code is stable and simple enough to hit the tree for people to start using it. Thanks, Jeff > > -- > DE >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080226233645.D920>