Re: kern/40419 (processor sets broken on 5.99.6)

[Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR kern/40419; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>
To: Andrew Doran <ad%netbsd.org@localhost>
Cc: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost, netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost, 
gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost
Subject: Re: kern/40419 (processor sets broken on 5.99.6)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:08:53 +0000

 Andrew Doran <ad%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
 > > We can do yield() in sys__pset_bind(). Do you think it is worth?
 > 
 > I was thinking of a function that scans all threads, with cpu_lock held, and
 > checks to see if their l_cpu is allowed by their affinity mask, processor
 > set or LP_BOUND flag. If not, change l_cpu (or migrate if online), then do a
 > broadcast xcall to nullop() if there have been migrations.
 > 
 > Hmm, shouldn't psets and affinity masks be mutually exclusive?
 > 
 
 Yes, exactly what I thought while fixing this. While originally mixing was
 permitted, intervention to the "jailed" processor-set is really wrong!
 
 Fix committed (without xcall bit):
 
 http://mail-index.netbsd.org/source-changes/2009/01/20/msg215921.html
 
 By the way, does it make more sense to return EPERM or EBUSY, or other?
 
 > Andrew
 
 -- 
 Best regards,
 Mindaugas