Re: [tlug] Re: [RFC] Outline of the fast HTTP talk (PHP benchmark)

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@example.com>]

Curt Sampson writes:
 > On 2008-11-06 16:30 +0900 (Thu), Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

 > > Otherwise, I think you're confusing a general definition of the term
 > > with a particular implementation that you like, and are harassing
 > > Linux for having a different implementation.
 > 
 > Well, that doesn't make sense, given that Linux *does* have a good
 > implementation of CPU affinity, as well as being able to do CPU binding,
 > which they also confusingly call affinity.

Well, I'd still have to say that affinity is a property of the
scheduling algorithm, it gives a relationship between a process and
one or more CPUs, and that relationship is of varying degrees of
strength depending on the scheduler (possibly affected changing
scheduler parameters).  "Binding" is just an extreme case of
"affinity", just like "marriage" is (supposed to be) an extreme case
of "having a relationship".

 > On 2008-11-06 16:58 +0900 (Thu), Edward Middleton wrote:
 > 
 > > http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6799
 > 
 > Cute the distinguishing between "hard" and "soft" affinity, but especially
 > how they explain it:
 > 
 >     If a processor is bound to CPU zero, for example, then it can run
 >     only on CPU zero.
 > 
 > Why not just call it binding then, and not trample on the term
 > "affinity" which has a different, and in some senses opposite meaning,
 > from what they're talking about?

I can agree with that.