Re: SMP: process-specific options

Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 02/21/2010 04:26 PM, Henrik Nordström wrote:
>> sön 2010-02-21 klockan 15:14 -0700 skrev Alex Rousskov:
>>
>>> Please note that the CPU affinity hack where every process gets its own
>>> core would not work if ${process_name} is not a number, but we can come
>>> up with another hack to support that without enumerating all
>>> processes/cores.
>> From what I can tell that is about the only case where a number is
>> really needed. But some simple conditionals and pattern rules can solve
>> that.
>
> Agreed.
>

Is there any kind of kernel core labeling? that would be nicer to link
into than a blind core=N if it exists.
/just a thought.

>> Another case would be multiple processes each listening on a port of
>> it's own..
>>
>> 8000
>> 8001
>> 8002
>> 8003
>> etc..
>
> Yeah. Supporting this would also require adding support for integer math
> though.
>
>
> How about adding support for both ${process_name} and ${process_number}?
>
> process_name: squid1, squid2, ... squidN, cache1, cache2, ... values;
> process_number: 1, 2, ... N, N+1, N+2, ... values.
>

+1. yes that gets around the possible macro confusions. Or if thats
going to take too much time to do both, just the name one accepting
labels would be great.

Amos

-- 
Please be using
   Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE7 or 3.0.STABLE24
   Current Beta Squid 3.1.0.16