From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 27 09:36:18 2008 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 C213E106566B; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:36:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from webaccess-cl.virtdom.com (webaccess-cl.virtdom.com [216.240.101.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59A3C13C461; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:36:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from [192.168.1.107] (cpe-24-94-75-93.hawaii.res.rr.com [24.94.75.93]) (authenticated bits=0) by webaccess-cl.virtdom.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m1R9aCsV062865; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 04:36:15 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:37:58 -1000 (HST) From: Jeff Roberson X-X-Sender: jroberson@desktop To: Daniel Eischen In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20080226233645.D920@desktop> 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> <20080225160433.P920@desktop> <20080225194320.V920@desktop> <20080225213434.L920@desktop> <20080226121251.V920@desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Brooks Davis , Andrew Gallatin , Alfred Perlstein , arch@freebsd.org, Robert Watson , David Xu Subject: Re: cpuset and affinity implementation 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: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:36:18 -0000 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 >