Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 12:34:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 12:34:08 -0400 Received: from adsl-64-166-241-227.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net ([64.166.241.227]:57354 "EHLO www.hockin.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 13 Oct 2001 12:33:55 -0400 From: Tim Hockin Message-Id: <200110131614.f9DGEPA20311@www.hockin.org> Subject: Re: cpus_allowed To: rml@tech9.net (Robert Love) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 09:14:25 -0700 (PDT) Cc: fokkensr@linux06.vertis.nl (Rolf Fokkens), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1002990137.868.59.camel@phantasy> from "Robert Love" at Oct 13, 2001 12:22:15 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Most of the CPU affinity patches you see were written before > cpus_allowed. They go through all sorts of trouble to do what the OS > now does on its own. If you want to change CPU affinity then you just > need a patch that adds a syscall or proc interface for setting the > cpus_allowed mask. I'm still porting pset to 2.4. It is more robust than cpus_allowed and does more. My plan is to do away with cpus_allowed altogether, and just provide a compat with pset, but if enough stuff uses cpus_allowed, perhaps I'll have to leave it.. http://www.hockin.org/~thockin/pset 2.4.x patch not up yet - 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/