Linux compatible setaffinity.

[Andrew Gallatin]

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.

Thanks for working on this,

Drew