lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: processor affinity
Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
>
>> On Maw, 2004-09-28 at 17:02, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=2&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=merkey.INZZ.&OS=IN/merkey&RS=IN/merkey
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wow, I never knew about that.
>>>>
>>>> But guess who wrote the affinity system calls? :)
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I wrote them first, and coined the term.
>>
>>
>> Cute but GCOS3 had affinity syscalls for batch processing in the 1970's
>> and I don't believe it was original even then.
>>
>>
>
> Using them for Intel Cache affinity was new at the time. Intel SMP
> hardware was not readily available at the time and was in
> its infancy in 1993 when this was developed.

That is amazingly specific - I suppose using it for cache affinity on
earlier processors wouldn't count :)

Joking aside, this doesn't seem like it would apply to Linux's scheduler.
We don't use a global queue, and we don't implement hard affinities with
local queues, but with a specific bitmask of cpus.

Of course, I don't really have any idea how to interpret patents...
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:06    [W:2.369 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site