Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:02:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:02:40 -0500 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:23569 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:02:23 -0500 Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 15:01:04 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Davidsen To: Paul Jackson cc: linux-kernel , lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH] O(1) scheduler set_cpus_allowed for non-current tasks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Paul Jackson wrote: > I see three levels of synchonization possible here: > > 1) As Erich did, use IPI to get immediate application > > 2) Wakeup the target task, so that it will "soon" see the > cpus_allowed change, but don't bother with the IPI, or > > 3) Make no effort to expedite notifcation, and let the > target notice its changed cpus_allowed when (and if) > it ever happens to be scheduled active again. (3) looks good, if the process isn't running it makes little difference on which CPU it doesn't run. Would probably be enough to ensure that if it is scheduled active the change is noted at that time. "Eventually" is a good time to do this, when going through schedule code anyway. -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. - 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/