Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:15:41 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threads stuff Message-ID: <99Nov29.111117est.40352@border.alcanet.com.au> In-Reply-To: <38417A7F.B23C701D@vigrid.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911271542410.544-100000@current1.whistle.com> <3840B1EC.4614AAF0@vigrid.com> <199911281721.JAA45015@apollo.backplane.com> <38417A7F.B23C701D@vigrid.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1999-Nov-29 05:54:55 +1100, Daniel M. Eischen wrote: >Do we really want to be able to bind a _thread_ to a CPU? Yes. > Wouldn't it be sufficient to be able to bind a process to a CPU? Not really. If a process has multiple threads, it makes sense to be able to specify CPU affinity for each thread, since each thread can be scheduled independently. If you've got a multi-threaded process, I'm not sure why you'd want to bind it as a whole to a single CPU. This implies that only one thread can ever execute at once - which removes one major use for threads. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?99Nov29.111117est.40352>