Linux compatible setaffinity.

[Daniel Eischen]

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.

-- 
DE