Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262813AbUCRRsF (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:48:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262815AbUCRRsF (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:48:05 -0500 Received: from zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.57]:48354 "EHLO zcars04f.nortelnetworks.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262813AbUCRRsA (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:48:00 -0500 Message-ID: <4059E0B2.4030601@nortelnetworks.com> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:47:30 -0500 X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 From: Chris Friesen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020204 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ulrich Drepper Cc: Linux Kernel , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: sched_setaffinity usability -- other issue References: <40595842.5070708@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 867 Lines: 20 I have a different issue with setting cpu affinity. Has anyone considered a "soft" affinity? I'm thinking of the case where I want to run processes on separate cpus for performance reasons, but in the case that one cpu becomes unavailable (physically removed, hardware fault, etc.) I would like to move those processes back to working cpus (except for maybe the one that was actually running and therefore might be corrupted). In this case a reduced performance might be preferable to an unplanned failover to backup hardware. Has this scenario been considered, or will cpu affinity be a "hard" setting. Chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/