Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-41,: Re: SMP process/processor binding

# Re: SMP process/processor binding

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Mon, 11 Oct 1999 21:17:50 +0100 (BST)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Martin Lucina: "2.2.x corruption solved (Was Re: Statically linked 'tar')"
- Previous message: Chris Noe: "Updated i386 bootcode rewrite patch..."
- In reply to: Bill Huey: "Re: SMP process/processor binding"
- Next in thread: Tim Hockin: "Re: SMP process/processor binding"
- Reply: Tim Hockin: "Re: SMP process/processor binding"

> > Rather than posting the diffs here, they're available from the following
> > URL: http://teddy.xylene.com/smp-2.2.10.tar.gz
> > There's also a similar one for 2.0.37 (smp-2.0.37.tar.gz).
> >
> > If there's any significant interest in this, I'll move it along to
> > 2.3.19 (latest ?).
>
> Yes, absolutely.
> Does this also extend itself to the thread level ?

In Linux a thread is a process so yes. There is btw an established API +
some patches using it. The sysmp() interface is something a lot of big
cluster and SMP apps already handle as its used by SGI

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Martin Lucina: "2.2.x corruption solved (Was Re: Statically linked 'tar')"
- Previous message: Chris Noe: "Updated i386 bootcode rewrite patch..."
- In reply to: Bill Huey: "Re: SMP process/processor binding"
- Next in thread: Tim Hockin: "Re: SMP process/processor binding"
- Reply: Tim Hockin: "Re: SMP process/processor binding"