Linux compatible setaffinity.

[Kip Macy]

On Jan 11, 2008 11:23 AM, Andrew Gallatin <gallatin at cs.duke.edu> 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.
>
> Thanks for working on this,
>


Regardless of what the "optimal" API is, we should support this for
the benefit of Linux applications. Last I looked more applications
were developed on Linux than on FreeBSD. Can someone give a good
reason why this should not go in?

-Kip