[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] sched_[set|get]_affinity() syscall, 2.4.15-pre9

your comments about syscall vs. procfs:

> This patch comes about as an alternative to Ingo Molnar's
> syscall-implemented version. Ingo's code is nice; however I and
> others expressed discontent as yet another syscall. [...]

i do express discontent over yet another procfs bloat. What if procfs is
not mounted in a high security installation? Are affinities suddenly
unavailable? Such kind of dependencies are unacceptable IMO - if we want
to export the setting of affinities to user-space, then it should be a
system call.

(Also procfs is visibly slower than a system-call - i can well imagine
this to be an issue in some sort of threaded environment that creates and
destroys threads at a high rate, and wants to have a different affinity
for every new thread.)

> [...] Other benefits include the ease with which to set the affinity
> of tasks that are unaware of the new interface [...]

this was a red herring - see chaff.c.

> [...] and that with this approach applications don't need to hackishly
> check for the existence of a syscall.

uhm, what check? A nonexistent system call does not have to be checked

(so far no legitimate technical point has been made against the
syscall-based setting of affinities.)


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.218 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site