Re: [RFC][PATCH] cpus_allowed/launch_policy patch, 2.4.16

Robert Love (rml@tech9.net)
05 Dec 2001 21:42:37 -0500


On Wed, 2001-12-05 at 21:17, Matthew Dobson wrote:

> but, as soon as one of them exec()'s their no longer going to be using your
> functions.

But cpus_allowed is inherited, so why does it matter?

The only benefit I see to having it part of the fork operation as
opposed to Ingo's or my own patch, is that the parent need not be given
the same affinity.

And honestly I don't see that as a need. You could always change it
back after the exec. If that is unacceptable (you point out the cost of
forcing a task on and off a certain CPU), you could just have a wrapper
you exec that changes its affinity and then it execs the children.

Robert Love

-
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/