From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: sched_setaffinity usability
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:06:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040318210632.GA11529@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0403181248440.4976@dlang.diginsite.com>
* David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com> wrote:
> Doesn't /proc/config.gz answer this question?
no. /proc as an interface has the same disadvantages as the /etc
approach.
(there was talk about something like /proc/vdso.so - but in this special
case the kernel is much better at mapping the vdso pages: why spend
three syscalls and a pagefault on something that can be done zero-cost.)
99.9% of userspace code is modularized around the concept of ELF DSOs.
They are well-understood and have a history of providing good control of
backwards and forwards compatibility. They are flexible and they dont
really have any baggage that affects performance. A DSO is the ideal
interface to attach the kernel to glibc. Code and constant data can
reside in this DSO just fine. (even non-constant data can reside in the
DSO.) I'd really not want to reinvent the wheel and put yet another
concept of a dynamic shared object into the kernel (and make that
per-platform too).
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-18 21:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-18 8:05 sched_setaffinity usability Ulrich Drepper
2004-03-18 8:12 ` Tim Hockin
2004-03-18 8:22 ` Ulrich Drepper
2004-03-18 8:47 ` Ulrich Drepper
2004-03-18 9:45 ` Andrew Morton
2004-03-18 10:10 ` Andrew Morton
2004-03-18 11:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-03-18 12:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-03-18 12:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-03-19 8:05 ` Ulrich Drepper
2004-03-18 15:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-03-18 18:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-03-18 18:33 ` Andrew Morton
2004-03-18 18:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-03-18 18:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-03-18 20:01 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-03-18 20:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-03-18 20:49 ` David Lang
2004-03-18 20:57 ` Randy.Dunlap
2004-03-18 21:06 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2004-03-18 21:07 ` Davide Libenzi
2004-03-18 21:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-03-19 1:37 ` Davide Libenzi
2004-03-19 9:02 ` Helge Hafting
2004-03-21 9:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-03-19 0:00 ` Paul Jackson
2004-03-18 17:47 ` sched_setaffinity usability -- other issue Chris Friesen
[not found] <1B0Ls-lY-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <1B42z-3Lx-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <1B4Fh-4sQ-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <1B86P-8gq-69@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <1Bars-2s6-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <1BaKU-2Lg-49@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <1BaKX-2Lg-61@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <1BaUR-2V0-41@gated-at.bofh.it>
2004-03-18 21:23 ` sched_setaffinity usability Andi Kleen
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=20040318210632.GA11529@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=david.lang@digitalinsight.com \
--cc=drepper@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.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