On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 02:04:38PM -0500, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > I guess that what Peter is saying is that we don't want tasks > attached to a reservation landing on a CPU where the reservation > might be different or not existent at all.
Correct. > This way, the ATTACH_RESERVATION command would fail if any > of the CPUs in the cpumask are not part of the reservation. > And then our code would have to be notified any time the process' > affinity mask is changed (we either fail the affinity change > or detach the process automatically from the reservation). Does > this sound like a good solution? No. We're not going to have random drivers muck about with affinity masks, and most certainly not some manky ioctl. -- 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/
