On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 18:06 +0200, Raistlin wrote: > Anyway, maybe if, on some architecture, for some kind of application, > the affinity may have been set to preserve some kind actual cache or > memory locality for the task access pattern, maybe this could be an > issue, couldn't it? :-) > I mean, in some case where being sure of having a task running on a > particular CPU is somehow of paramount importance... Right, and you answered your own question :-), its _running_ that is important, so as long as its blocked (not running), you're free to place the task on another cpu if that helps out with something. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
