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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
