Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Nov 2015 10:03:33 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC] ioctl based CAT interface |
| |
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 02:04:38PM -0500, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > I guess that what Peter is saying is that we don't want tasks > attached to a reservation landing on a CPU where the reservation > might be different or not existent at all.
Correct.
> This way, the ATTACH_RESERVATION command would fail if any > of the CPUs in the cpumask are not part of the reservation. > And then our code would have to be notified any time the process' > affinity mask is changed (we either fail the affinity change > or detach the process automatically from the reservation). Does > this sound like a good solution?
No. We're not going to have random drivers muck about with affinity masks, and most certainly not some manky ioctl.
| |