[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPLrYEQQtTiqovPs7c_JK5Ke3_H5i+NVoJ7o8sV9qQM85YGg4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:25:39 +0200
From: Daniel Cegiełka <daniel.cegielka@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Proposed roadmap to 1.0
2013/7/24 Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>:
>
> That was my question about the whole affinity system in general. My
> view is that it's stupid micro-management of scheduling that should be
> done by the kernel, and that if the kernel's not doing a good enough
> job of managing which cpu a task runs on, the kernel scheduler should
> be fixed rather than adding hacks in apps.
Not always. Sometimes the kernel scheduler isn't the solution and you
care about isolating applications from the kernel/os. How do you do it
without this feature?
http://highscalability.com/blog/2013/5/13/the-secret-to-10-million-concurrent-connections-the-kernel-i.html
musl is a very good candidate for use in HPC, so this functionality
would be very valuable.
Daniel
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.
