Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 27 Nov 2001 12:32:28 +0100 (CET) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: procfs bloat, syscall bloat [in reference to cpu affinity] |
| |
On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Joe Korty wrote:
> So my rule is, services of the first kind, the ones that are simple > and eternal, should be system calls, while the quirky second kind > should be consigned soley to the proc fs. > > I feel that the cpu affinity services are of the first kind. They are > very simple, very conceptual services that have absolutely no tie in > to any architecture other than it be SMP, and even on uniprocessors > they reduce down gracefully to the null state. [...]
yep, agreed. Also, /proc might not be mounted in eg. a chroot environment. (a number of security-conscious servers do this.) Or it might not be mounted at all, for whatever reason.
> I am not against a proc interface per se, I would like a proc > interface, especially for the reading of affinity values. But in my > view the system call interface should also exist and it should be the > dominate way of communicating affinity to processes.
i'm not against the /proc interface either - on the contrary, i've picked it when implementing /proc/irq/<NR>/smp_affinity.
Ingo
- 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/
|  |