[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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.


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:0.139 / U:0.512 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site