Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:59:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:59:09 -0400 Received: from pixpat.austin.ibm.com ([192.35.232.241]:56924 "EHLO wagner.rustcorp.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:59:08 -0400 Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 02:26:30 +1000 From: Rusty Russell To: Ingo Molnar Cc: rml@mvista.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, davem@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] 2.4.19-pre10-ac2: O(1) scheduler merge, -A3. Message-Id: <20020618022630.17a907b4.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> In-Reply-To: References: <1024271844.1476.26.camel@sinai> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.7.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; powerpc-debian-linux-gnu) 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 Content-Length: 1032 Lines: 26 On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 05:24:30 +0200 (CEST) Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > - sched_setaffinity() & sched_getaffinity() syscalls on x86. > > > > Do we want to introduce this into 2.4 now? I realize 2.4-ac is not 2.4 > > proper, but if there is a chance this interface could change... > > the setaffinity()/getaffinity() interface looks pretty robust, i dont > expect any changes There's one coming. In 2.5.soon, you'll need to handle the "CPU going away" signal, otherwise your process will abort as someone downs a CPU. The problem with backporting one and not the other, is that apps can't be written correctly for 2.4 and 2.5 8( Rusty. -- there are those who do and those who hang on and you don't see too many doers quoting their contemporaries. -- Larry McVoy - 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/