Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 21:02:53 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <>
Cc: musl <>, Michael Jeanson <>,
	Richard Purdie <>,
	Jonathan Rajotte <>
Subject: Re: sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF) returns the wrong value

* Mathieu Desnoyers <> [2019-03-26 14:01:08 -0400]:
> ----- On Mar 26, 2019, at 1:45 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > i agree that the current behaviour is not ideal, but
> > iterating over /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu* may not
> > be correct either.. based on current linux api docs.
> > 
> > i don't understand why is that number different from the
> > cpu set in /sys/devices/system/cpu/possible
> I suspect both iteration over /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu* and
> content of /sys/devices/system/cpu/possible should provide the
> same result. However, looking at Linux
> Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu ,
> it appears that /sys/devices/system/cpu/possible was introduced
> in December 2008, whereas /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu#/ was there
> pre-git history.
> This could explain why glibc uses the iteration method.
> Thoughts ?

as far as i can tell the cpu iteration method is valid,
and that directory list cannot change after boot (is this
guaranteed by the linux abi in the future?), so as long
as /sys is mounted we can get the number, but it's fairly
ugly.. does lttng have fallback code if sysconf returns -1?
if it does maybe musl should just do that (or somebody has
to write cancellation safe directory traversal code)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.