[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87o8rtjcwj.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 11:50:36 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
To: Norbert Lange <nolange79@...il.com>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] sysconf implementing _SC_NPROCESSORS_(CONF|ONLN) incorrectly
* Norbert Lange:
> How should one deal with this?
> I understand that the semantics are vague, but given that musl now
> implements this
> function, it will make detection and fallback hard (especially as musl
> doesn't wants to be identified by the likes of macros).
>
> As it is now, just using the affinity mask definitely cant be useful,
> an application wanting that behavior should be patched to
> use that function directly.
> If musl would not define the _SC_NPROCESSORS_* macros (but still keep
> the implementation),
> this could be used for compile-time detection atleast. Enabling the
> current implementation would be
> just a matter of explicitly defining those macros.
_SC_NPROCESSORS_* as implemented in glibc is bad because those values
are not adjusted by cgroups, so it can grossly overestimate available
resources.
The cgroups interfaces themselves are not stable and very complicated.
I don't think it's a good idea to target them, especially not from
code that is expected to be linked statically into applications.
Given that, I'm not sure that glibc's way is a significant
improvement. musl should perhaps be changed to cope more gracefully
with a sched_getaffinity failure, though (by not reporting a UP
environment by accident).
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.
