From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263385AbTDLTon (for ); Sat, 12 Apr 2003 15:44:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263386AbTDLTon (for ); Sat, 12 Apr 2003 15:44:43 -0400 Received: from nmail1.systems.pipex.net ([62.241.160.130]:50110 "EHLO nmail1.systems.pipex.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263385AbTDLTom (for ); Sat, 12 Apr 2003 15:44:42 -0400 To: Subject: Re: Re: Processor sets (pset) for linux kernel 2.5/2.6? Message-ID: <1050177383.3e986f67b7f68@netmail.pipex.net> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 20:56:23 +0100 From: "Shaheed R. Haque" Cc: References: <1050146434.3e97f68300fff@netmail.pipex.net> In-Reply-To: <1050146434.3e97f68300fff@netmail.pipex.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: PIPEX NetMail 2.2.0-pre13 X-PIPEX-username: aozw65%dsl.pipex.com X-Originating-IP: 81.86.202.62 X-Usage: Use of PIPEX NetMail is subject to the PIPEX Terms and Conditions of use Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hmmm, AFAICS, sched_getaffinity() and sched_setaffinity() allow the calling process to be bound to the nominated CPU(s), but that is not the same as giving them exclusive access, is it? In other words, other processes which have no particualr affinity needs can presumably still be scheduled to run on the same processor. I am looking for something more akin to the patch I referred to...or did I miss something in the effect of set_cpus_allowed()? Thanks for the replies, Shaheed