From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263140AbTDMDke (for ); Sat, 12 Apr 2003 23:40:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263144AbTDMDke (for ); Sat, 12 Apr 2003 23:40:34 -0400 Received: from franka.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.44]:18092 "EHLO franka.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263140AbTDMDkd (for ); Sat, 12 Apr 2003 23:40:33 -0400 Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 20:52:11 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: "Shaheed R. Haque" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org cc: thockin@isunix.it.ilstu.edu Subject: Re: Re: Processor sets (pset) for linux kernel 2.5/2.6? Message-ID: <241480000.1050205930@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: <1050177383.3e986f67b7f68@netmail.pipex.net> References: <1050146434.3e97f68300fff@netmail.pipex.net> <1050177383.3e986f67b7f68@netmail.pipex.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Hmmm, AFAICS, sched_getaffinity() and sched_setaffinity() > allow the calling process to be bound to the nominated CPU(s), but that is not > the same as giving them exclusive access, is it? In other words, other > processes which have no particualr affinity needs can presumably still be > scheduled to run on the same processor. > > I am looking for something more akin to the patch I referred to...or did I miss > something in the effect of set_cpus_allowed()? The NUMA scheduler work can trivially be converted into arbitrary scheduler pools - they are not designed for dynamic modification at the moment, but could be without too much effort I think. Around 2.5.59 or so I posted a patch to rename them to pools, though we had a few other things to sort out at the time. I might revive it at some point - it's pretty simple. M.