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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox