From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 983213858D28; Mon, 20 Feb 2023 22:46:00 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 983213858D28
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org;
	s=default; t=1676933160;
	bh=NtROaV2QG2ULw289TFVF7V9KWHVYuqmUi2AfbjHh3M8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=R7AWVCHxziKQszsj+IYRyWQ6eIfVqBbuD1SVmqcCBKPUrljf0TlMDmWQFG7Ry8MWH
	 8ZXsjDOS1xkKzlJ0rrbxcEGOqrrMUEm+9d6j7uxk8btlY0ZGLsOO9ciaazcGt2ieO3
	 lFZ3pDwUYLuF64Ue9kAD3d9OyEtWLcYXSHvJtT0o=
From: "adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org"
 <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug libc/30135] sysconf: _SC_NPROCESSORS*: tweak?
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 22:46:00 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libc
X-Bugzilla-Version: 2.36
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-30135-131-fUdjiQO0vY@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-30135-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-30135-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <glibc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D30135

--- Comment #3 from Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot or=
g> ---
(In reply to Steffen Nurpmeso from comment #2)
> . sysconf and _SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN is the only standardized variant,
> sched_getaffinity() is not a portable interface.
>=20
> . I feel "currently available to run threads" pretty much matches that
> CPU_COUNT() thing that nproc(1) uses.
>=20
> . For example, look at zstd(1), they use sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN) to
> realize -T0.  Same for xz(1).
> This is _all_ wrong in my cgroup restricted environment, they potentially
> "over-thread".
>=20
> . Quite the opposite, top(1) is to be changed (a bit strange as my version
> is from https://gitlab.com/procps-ng aka /proc based)
> If i run it in a cgroup-mutilated environment with three CPUs, it lists a
> fourth one that is out of scope!
>=20
> . I have not checked virtual machines.  It astounds me they use synthesiz=
ed
> CPU counts instead of the CPU count that truly is available.

Fell free to rehash this discussion on libc-alpha, but as I said we already
tried it and since it turned out to generate a lot of unseen problems we
decided to revert and use sysfs instead.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=