lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] cpus_allowed/launch_policy patch, 2.4.16
From
Date
On Wed, 2001-12-05 at 21:17, Matthew Dobson wrote:

> but, as soon as one of them exec()'s their no longer going to be using your
> functions.

But cpus_allowed is inherited, so why does it matter?

The only benefit I see to having it part of the fork operation as
opposed to Ingo's or my own patch, is that the parent need not be given
the same affinity.

And honestly I don't see that as a need. You could always change it
back after the exec. If that is unacceptable (you point out the cost of
forcing a task on and off a certain CPU), you could just have a wrapper
you exec that changes its affinity and then it execs the children.

Robert Love

-
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:0.072 / U:0.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site