Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:44:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:44:32 -0500 Received: from zero.tech9.net ([209.61.188.187]:27155 "EHLO zero.tech9.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 14:44:14 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] O(1) scheduler set_cpus_allowed for non-current tasks From: Robert Love To: Erich Focht Cc: linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , Paul Jackson , Matthew Dobson , lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0.2 Date: 20 Feb 2002 14:44:12 -0500 Message-Id: <1014234254.18361.43.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2002-02-20 at 12:57, Erich Focht wrote: > The patch is for 2.5.4-K3. I'm actually developing on IA-64 and tested it > on Itanium systems based on 2.4.17 kernels where it survived my > tests. I hope this works for i386 and is helpful to someone. I was working on the same thing myself. I don't have a working solution, so you beat me, and thus good job. I think we need this, for various reasons, especially to implement a method of setting task affinity that we can export to userspace. I am a little surprised by how much code it took, though. Do we need the function to act asynchronously? In other words, is it a requirement that the task reschedule immediately, or only that when it next reschedules it obeys its affinity? Also, what is the reason for allowing multiple calls to set_cpus_allowed? How often would that even occur? Robert Love - 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/