Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 11:53:06 +0800 From: David Xu <davidxu@FreeBSD.org> To: Brian McGinty <brian.mcginty@gmail.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Linux compatible setaffinity. Message-ID: <47707EA2.8010002@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <601bffc40712241909t10e6f3k8e7940d387b6efc2@mail.gmail.com> References: <20071219211025.T899@desktop> <476B1973.6070902@freebsd.org> <20071222183700.L5866@fledge.watson.org> <476F0EE5.1040404@freebsd.org> <601bffc40712241909t10e6f3k8e7940d387b6efc2@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brian McGinty wrote: > 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. I don't have plan. ;-) If I understand it correctly, it is a hint to scheduler, it is better describing thread relationship, while Jeff's interface is a hard cpu binding interface, it is still needed in some circumstance. Regards,
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47707EA2.8010002>