your comments about syscall vs. procfs:
> This patch comes about as an alternative to Ingo Molnar's
> syscall-implemented version. Ingo's code is nice; however I and
> others expressed discontent as yet another syscall. [...]
i do express discontent over yet another procfs bloat. What if procfs is
not mounted in a high security installation? Are affinities suddenly
unavailable? Such kind of dependencies are unacceptable IMO - if we want
to export the setting of affinities to user-space, then it should be a
system call.
(Also procfs is visibly slower than a system-call - i can well imagine
this to be an issue in some sort of threaded environment that creates and
destroys threads at a high rate, and wants to have a different affinity
for every new thread.)
> [...] Other benefits include the ease with which to set the affinity
> of tasks that are unaware of the new interface [...]
this was a red herring - see chaff.c.
> [...] and that with this approach applications don't need to hackishly
> check for the existence of a syscall.
uhm, what check? A nonexistent system call does not have to be checked
for.
(so far no legitimate technical point has been made against the
syscall-based setting of affinities.)
Ingo
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 30 2001 - 21:00:25 EST