Re: getaffinity/setaffinity and cpu sets.
- From: Ceri Davies <ceri@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:37:49 +0000
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 09:27:41AM +0000, Robert Watson wrote:
- You don't mention what happens if a process's cpu set changes to preclude a
CPU the process has a thread with affinity for. Online, you suggested
SIGKILL, and I thought maybe a new SIGCPUGONE with a default SIGKILL action
might be a friendlier model. We should see what Solaris and others do here
though. I like the idea that the affinity is a guarantee in userspace
because it means that you can rely on it; I'm OK with the idea that your
thread always runs on the CPUs you have affinity for unless in the
SIGCPUGONE handler :-).
If a processor set disappears from under a process on Solaris, the
process gets moved to the "default" set (or, in other words, they aren't
in a set any more).
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
Attachment:
pgpdbtH66gcjq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: getaffinity/setaffinity and cpu sets.
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: getaffinity/setaffinity and cpu sets.
- References:
- Re: Linux compatible setaffinity.
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: Linux compatible setaffinity.
- From: Robert Watson
- Re: Linux compatible setaffinity.
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: Linux compatible setaffinity.
- From: Robert Watson
- Re: Linux compatible setaffinity.
- From: David Xu
- Re: Linux compatible setaffinity.
- From: Jeff Roberson
- getaffinity/setaffinity and cpu sets.
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: getaffinity/setaffinity and cpu sets.
- From: Robert Watson
- Re: Linux compatible setaffinity.
- Prev by Date: Re: dev.* analogue for interfaces
- Next by Date: Re: getaffinity/setaffinity and cpu sets.
- Previous by thread: Re: getaffinity/setaffinity and cpu sets.
- Next by thread: Re: getaffinity/setaffinity and cpu sets.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|