Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Cathey, Jim wrote: > >Embedded != consumer electronics. > > Indeed. Our products use Busybox, > and with some of them it's not > impossible to push the per-unit price > into seven figures (USD). They > are flash-based, not disk-based, > and file space is at a mo

RE: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

>Embedded != consumer electronics. Indeed. Our products use Busybox, and with some of them it's not impossible to push the per-unit price into seven figures (USD). They are flash-based, not disk-based, and file space is at a modest premium, which is why BB is being used to begin with. Only eigh

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Matthieu Ternisien d'Ouville > wrote: > > This patch adds support of more than 64 cores for taskset. > > I applied a bit different implementation. Please try current git. > Thank's for taking care of thi

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Matthieu Ternisien d'Ouville < matthieu@6wind.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Isaac Dunham wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:35:46PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote: >> > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Aaro Koskinen >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Hi,

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Matthieu Ternisien d'Ouville wrote: > This patch adds support of more than 64 cores for taskset. I applied a bit different implementation. Please try current git. ___ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Matthieu Ternisien d'Ouville wrote: > This patch adds support of more than 64 cores for taskset. > > Signed-off-by: Matthieu Ternisien d'Ouville > --- > miscutils/taskset.c | 39 +++ > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 8 dele

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Laszlo Papp wrote: > I wonder about the use case for this feature? I mean busybox is meant for > small systems in general, and >=64 cores are not that small embedded > systems, at least not yet, yeah? I think we should support big systems too. Larger user base mak

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Isaac Dunham wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:35:46PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Aaro Koskinen > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:27:12PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote: > > > > Show me one typical em

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:35:46PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Aaro Koskinen > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:27:12PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote: > > > Show me one typical embedded system that is high-volume and has more than > > > 64 cores. Ev

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

Laszlo Papp wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Aaro Koskinen > wrote: Hi, On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 02:25:04PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote: > I wonder about the use case for this feature? I mean busybox is meant for > small systems in general

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

Hi, BTW, if you care about bloat, please consider stopping sending HTML mails to the list. A. ___ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:19:34PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote: > > Right, so you cannot bring up any valid and real use case for this, or do > > not want despite the explicit clarification request, I take it. I do not > > think theore

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

Hi, On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:19:34PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote: > Right, so you cannot bring up any valid and real use case for this, or do > not want despite the explicit clarification request, I take it. I do not > think theoretical changes should be added just because it is a good > technical

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:35:46PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote: > > Not quite sure what you are trying to achieve, but you wrote embedded > > systems _word-by-word_, and I asked for one typical example with more > than > > 64 cores whe

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

Hi, On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:35:46PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote: > Not quite sure what you are trying to achieve, but you wrote embedded > systems _word-by-word_, and I asked for one typical example with more than > 64 cores where busybox is so much needed. I'm not trying the limit busybox usage,

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:27:12PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote: > > Show me one typical embedded system that is high-volume and has more than > > 64 cores. Even the full-fledged iphone tablets are not there and even if > > they were, t

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

Hi, On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:27:12PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote: > Show me one typical embedded system that is high-volume and has more than > 64 cores. Even the full-fledged iphone tablets are not there and even if > they were, they would use complete utils rather than chopped most probably > any

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 02:25:04PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote: > > I wonder about the use case for this feature? I mean busybox is meant for > > small systems in general, and >=64 cores are not that small embedded > > systems, at leas

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

Hi, On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 02:25:04PM +0100, Laszlo Papp wrote: > I wonder about the use case for this feature? I mean busybox is meant for > small systems in general, and >=64 cores are not that small embedded > systems, at least not yet, yeah? How you define small? Earlier you said using libc

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

Yes, busybox is used on small system or small OS. In our case, all cores are dedicated to network functions and the OS is minimal. On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Laszlo Papp wrote: > I wonder about the use case for this feature? I mean busybox is meant for > small systems in general, and >=64

Re: [PATCH] taskset: support more than 64 cores

I wonder about the use case for this feature? I mean busybox is meant for small systems in general, and >=64 cores are not that small embedded systems, at least not yet, yeah? On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Matthieu Ternisien d'Ouville < matthieu@6wind.com> wrote: > This patch adds support