Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] cpus_allowed/launch_policy patch, 2.4.16 | From | Robert Love <> | Date | 05 Dec 2001 21:42:37 -0500 |
| |
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/
| |