Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cpumask 5/10 rewrite cpumask.h - single bitmap based implementation | From | Rusty Russell <> | Date | Sun, 06 Jun 2004 12:07:39 +1000 |
| |
On Sat, 2004-06-05 at 04:12, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > /* William Lee Irwin III: > >> I'm thoroughly disgusted. > > On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:47:56AM -0700, Paul Jackson wrote: > > Yup ... LOL. One sick piece of code.
We've been here before. I argued the userspace interface was broken to require this looping, Linus said it was fine, Ingo said "userspace will assume < 1024 cpus" and if we get more than that we'll need a new interface, and that's what glibc does today with its cpu_set_t.
Shades of select-style pain, but it's not likely to change in the near future.
Note also that saying "Schedule me on CPU 1 and 999" 'succeeds' at the moment.
Yes, NR_CPUS needs to get to userspace somehow sanely if we want to fix this in general.
Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their signature is an idiot -- Rusty Russell
- 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/
| |