Re: [PATCH] Process pinning

[Andrew Morton]

Tim Hockin wrote:
> 
> > disallowed CPU on which it is already running.  And even a non-RT
> > process will stick on its disallowed CPU as long as nothing else runs
> > there.
> 
> are we going to keep the cpus_allowed API?  If we want the (IMHO) more
> flexible sysmp() API - I'll finish the 2.4 port.  If we are going to keep
> cpus_allowed - I'll just abandon pset and sysmp.
> 
> Personally, I like sysmp() and the pset tools better, perhaps with a /proc
> extension to it.

http://www.uow.edu.au/~andrewm/linux/cpus_allowed.patch