Linux compatible setaffinity.

[Andrew Gallatin]

Daniel Eischen writes:
 > On Fri, 11 Jan 2008, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
 > 
 > >
 > > Jeff Roberson writes:
 > > > I have implemented a linux compatible sched_setaffinity() call which is
 > > > somewhat crippled.  This allows a userspace process to supply a bitmask of
 > > > processors which it will run on.  I have copied the linux interface such
 > > > that it should be api compatible because I believe it is a sensible
 > > > interface and they beat us to it by 3 years.
 > >
 > > I'm somewhat surprised that this has not hit the tree yet.  What
 > > happened?  Wasn't the consensus that it was a good thing?
 > >
 > > FWIW, I was too busy to reply at the time, but I agree that the Apple
 > > interface is nice.  However, sometimes one needs a hard CPU binding
 > > interface like this one, and I don't see any reason to defer adding
 > > this interface in favor of the Apple one, since they are somewhat
 > > orthogonal.  I'd be strongly in favor of having a hard CPU binding
 > > interface.
 > 
 > I favor the Solaris API which allows you to specify either
 > a process or a thread (LWP) and a processor set.

Honestly, I don't care what the API is.  I just want a way to do hard
CPU binding.  Since Jeff has a patch, I'm strongly in favor of doing
it his way.   A bird in the hand beats 2 in the bush. :)

Drew