[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1368936317.2611.1@driftwood>
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 23:05:17 -0500
From: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: cpuset/affinity interfaces and TSX lock elision in musl
On 05/17/2013 12:01:26 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 11:49:11PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On 05/16/2013 03:36:58 PM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > >On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 06:37:01PM +0200, Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
> > >> 1) Are there any plans to add support for cpuset/affinity
> > >interfaces?
> > >
> > >I sat down to do it one day, and it was so ugly I got sick and put
> it
> > >off again. Seriously. There's a huge abundance of CPU_*
> > >macros/functions for manipulating abstract bitsets, but all "cpu
> set"
> > >specific for no good reason.
> > >
> > >If anyone wants to volunteer to do these, it would be a big relief
> to
> > >me. Some caveats:
> >
> > Meh, the data format's trivial. It's just that the documentation is
> > in an insane place, namely here:
>
> It's also the exact same format as fd_set and sigset_t, i.e. the only
> natural set implementation. What's frustrating is that we have to have
> 3+ sets of interfaces that do exactly the same thing...
Inside the kernel it's all the same set interface. It's just glibc that
decided to add layers.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
