Re: cpuset and affinity implementation
- From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:40:37 -0500 (EST)
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Jeff Roberson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Jeff, this is very cool. I do have one issue though:
+ * A thread may not be assigned to a a group seperate from other threads in
+ * the process. This is to remove ambiguity when the setid is queried with
+ * a pid argument. There is no other technical limitation.
Am I understanding things correctly such that within a process there
can only be one "set"?
If so this restricts some of the benifits you get with sets and
binding.
An example would be some sort of system with multiple CPUs where some
are assigned specifically for pseudo-realtime processing and others are for
general control things such as cli, stats, etc.
In our case we would like to be able to run some threads on specific
cpu sets, and other threads to be run anywhere on the control CPUs.
Can this be done with this API?
Individual threads can be bound to any cpu or group of cpus within the set. So if you just make a set that includes all cpus in the system you can then bind your realtime threads to specific cpus and the other threads to the remainder. You will have to specifically bind each thread however.
The reason individual threads can't be assigned to groups is because cpuset_getid() for a pid wouldn't make sense then and I expect administrators to be mostly interested in managing groups of processes.
If the administrator sets up a set of CPUs specifically for
real-time and another set for non-real-time, you may want to
bind some threads to the real-time set, and leave other threads
unbound (or even bound to the non-real-time set). In this
case, I think cpuset_getid() should either return the default
cpuset of all cpus in the system, or the last cpuset to
which the process was bound.
But regardless, I think binding a thread to a different
processor set should be allowed and should override its
inherent binding of the process' processor set.
Hmm, I guess in this case, a subsequent binding of the
process to a processor set should probably override any
per-thread bindings.
--
DE
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: cpuset and affinity implementation
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: cpuset and affinity implementation
- References:
- 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: getaffinity/setaffinity and cpu sets.
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: getaffinity/setaffinity and cpu sets.
- From: Brooks Davis
- Re: getaffinity/setaffinity and cpu sets.
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: getaffinity/setaffinity and cpu sets.
- From: Brooks Davis
- Re: getaffinity/setaffinity and cpu sets.
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: getaffinity/setaffinity and cpu sets.
- From: Brooks Davis
- cpuset and affinity implementation
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: cpuset and affinity implementation
- From: Alfred Perlstein
- Re: cpuset and affinity implementation
- From: Jeff Roberson
- Re: Linux compatible setaffinity.
- Prev by Date: Re: cpuset and affinity implementation
- Next by Date: Re: cpuset and affinity implementation
- Previous by thread: Re: cpuset and affinity implementation
- Next by thread: Re: cpuset and affinity implementation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|