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

    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.031 / U:30.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site