On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:56 AM, matthew green <m...@eterna.com.au> wrote: >> > Since we already use preempt_disable() to force an lwp to stick to a cpu, >> > doesn't that solve the problem? If need be, we can enforce nonpreemptable >> > lwp's don't migrate. > > why would we want to disable preemption in code that merely wants > to run on a particular cpu. > > i dno't understand why using the side effect of preempt_disable() > is better than explicitly stating what is wanted.
Yes. That's why the API is introduced. ozaki-r
