From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3736
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Daniel_Cegie=B3ka?= <daniel.cegielka@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: Proposed roadmap to 1.0
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:25:39 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPLrYEQQtTiqovPs7c_JK5Ke3_H5i+NVoJ7o8sV9qQM85YGg4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20130717160204.GF12469@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <1374691013.3031.6@driftwood>
 <20130724194719.GY3249@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1374737173 25967 80.91.229.3 (25 Jul 2013 07:26:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 07:26:13 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-3740-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Jul 25 09:26:12 2013
Return-path: <musl-return-3740-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-3740-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1V2FwC-0005Bg-DX
	for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 09:26:12 +0200
Original-Received: (qmail 17580 invoked by uid 550); 25 Jul 2013 07:26:11 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 17569 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2013 07:26:10 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :content-type;
        bh=UDp7fhcQdrXEdXCl7Fpsc+VTPfWfNyHWa8vGAWIwa14=;
        b=LBGTZ0Kl23l5S7uX49rAfnF/eGBe8h3vKtJI01vbzBxNB8+qBTEpG9NWJQZdawW/lv
         z3Qtj47/PhraCBJgFWZpPPGachDUXMFF+AikuTvuI3vNDXQ8nUyaGuufnggLTZN7ks/G
         oc4zquGbb24OluRUFenjPynFiJ0GRdtD1gmPQxk4BKGrBier58EMakK/uGQdkQmxJ/hu
         1qyL8BTm9bf/7DiVQui2puoRC6bhB9OogmtAubeJlJ+PYcVzPvvA/1gNuXbHKCReTW2b
         41GUxmWm8Shf+2cvY0aesRVuzm5s6Zj2qYeDmF4alaBn37sadtoR97kd0xcwudWPZIpn
         vfZQ==
X-Received: by 10.112.89.73 with SMTP id bm9mr18180759lbb.39.1374737159371;
 Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130724194719.GY3249@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:3736
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3736>

2013/7/24 Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>:

>
> That was my question about the whole affinity system in general. My
> view is that it's stupid micro-management of scheduling that should be
> done by the kernel, and that if the kernel's not doing a good enough
> job of managing which cpu a task runs on, the kernel scheduler should
> be fixed rather than adding hacks in apps.

Not always. Sometimes the kernel scheduler isn't the solution and you
care about isolating applications from the kernel/os. How do you do it
without this feature?

http://highscalability.com/blog/2013/5/13/the-secret-to-10-million-concurrent-connections-the-kernel-i.html

musl is a very good candidate for use in HPC, so this functionality
would be very valuable.

Daniel