Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Apr 2001 12:25:19 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Process pinning |
| |
Tim Hockin wrote: > > > disallowed CPU on which it is already running. And even a non-RT > > process will stick on its disallowed CPU as long as nothing else runs > > there. > > are we going to keep the cpus_allowed API? If we want the (IMHO) more > flexible sysmp() API - I'll finish the 2.4 port. If we are going to keep > cpus_allowed - I'll just abandon pset and sysmp. > > Personally, I like sysmp() and the pset tools better, perhaps with a /proc > extension to it.
http://www.uow.edu.au/~andrewm/linux/cpus_allowed.patch - 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/
| |