From: Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>
To: Matthew Dobson <colpatch@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] cpus_allowed/launch_policy patch, 2.4.16
Date: 05 Dec 2001 21:42:37 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1007606568.814.15.camel@phantasy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3C0ED52E.B15F0ED7@us.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <3C0ECBE0.F21464FA@us.ibm.com> <Pine.LNX.4.40.0112051800400.1644-100000@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com> <3C0ED52E.B15F0ED7@us.ibm.com>
On Wed, 2001-12-05 at 21:17, Matthew Dobson wrote:
> but, as soon as one of them exec()'s their no longer going to be using your
> functions.
But cpus_allowed is inherited, so why does it matter?
The only benefit I see to having it part of the fork operation as
opposed to Ingo's or my own patch, is that the parent need not be given
the same affinity.
And honestly I don't see that as a need. You could always change it
back after the exec. If that is unacceptable (you point out the cost of
forcing a task on and off a certain CPU), you could just have a wrapper
you exec that changes its affinity and then it execs the children.
Robert Love
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-12-06 2:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-11-22 8:59 [patch] sched_[set|get]_affinity() syscall, 2.4.15-pre9 Ingo Molnar
2001-11-22 20:22 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-11-22 23:45 ` Robert Love
2001-11-23 0:20 ` Ryan Cumming
2001-11-23 0:36 ` Mark Hahn
2001-11-23 11:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-11-24 22:44 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-11-23 0:51 ` Robert Love
2001-11-23 1:11 ` Andreas Dilger
2001-11-23 1:16 ` Robert Love
2001-11-23 11:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-11-24 2:01 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-11-27 3:39 ` Robert Love
2001-11-27 7:13 ` Joe Korty
2001-11-27 20:53 ` Robert Love
2001-11-27 21:31 ` Nathan Dabney
2001-11-27 8:04 ` procfs bloat, syscall bloat [in reference to cpu affinity] Joe Korty
2001-11-27 11:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-11-27 20:56 ` Robert Love
2001-11-27 14:04 ` Phil Howard
2001-11-27 18:05 ` Tim Hockin
2001-11-27 8:40 ` [patch] sched_[set|get]_affinity() syscall, 2.4.15-pre9 Ingo Molnar
2001-11-27 4:41 ` a nohup-like interface to cpu affinity Linux maillist account
2001-11-27 4:49 ` Robert Love
2001-11-27 6:32 ` Linux maillist account
2001-11-27 6:39 ` Robert Love
2001-11-27 8:42 ` Sean Hunter
2001-12-06 1:35 ` Matthew Dobson
2001-12-06 1:37 ` [RFC][PATCH] cpus_allowed/launch_policy patch, 2.4.16 Matthew Dobson
2001-12-06 2:08 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-12-06 2:17 ` Matthew Dobson
2001-12-06 2:39 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-12-06 2:42 ` Robert Love [this message]
2001-12-06 22:21 ` Matthew Dobson
2001-11-27 6:50 ` a nohup-like interface to cpu affinity Linux maillist account
2001-11-27 8:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2001-11-23 11:02 ` [patch] sched_[set|get]_affinity() syscall, 2.4.15-pre9 Ingo Molnar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1007606568.814.15.camel@phantasy \
--to=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=colpatch@us.ibm.com \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.