On 02/23/2010 02:01 AM, Kinkie wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:54 AM, Alex Rousskov > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 02/21/2010 10:36 PM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> >>> Is there any kind of kernel core labeling? that would be nicer to link >>> into than a blind core=N if it exists. >>> /just a thought. >> I am not an expert on this, but judging by man sched_setaffinity(2) and >> man getcpu(2), processors (i.e., cores) are identified by "unique small >> integers". It is possible that those integers are not sequential on some >> advanced systems, I guess, but I am not sure we should worry about it >> now. Any other opinions? > > We could let the kernel scheduler decide what's best (aka ignore the issue) :)
Yes, that would be the default. However, I am certain that the default will not be enough in many high-load deployments, which is the focus of SMP work. The scheduler helps with CPU affinity. However CPU affinity configuration is only a small part of the problem. We need process naming/numbering/identification for many other, more important reasons such as having processes dedicated to certain tasks or configuration subsets. Thank you, Alex.
