Why is taskset still not in util-linux?

Mark Geisert mark@maxrnd.com
Thu Mar 19 23:29:46 GMT 2020

Eliot Moss wrote:
> On 3/16/2020 7:34 PM, Mark Geisert wrote:
>  > Mark Geisert wrote:
>  >> Eliot Moss wrote:
>  >>>
>  >>> Dear cygwin-ers --
>  >>>
>  >>> Something I had asked about a while ago was the absence os taskset in cygwin's
>  >>> util-linux.  At the time, it was pointed out that the necessary get/set
>  >>> affinity library/system calls were not yet supported.  These were added a
>  >>> while ago, so it would seem that taskset ought to work.  In fact, I think
>  >>> someone got it going on their own.  Can we add it to util-linux now,
>  >>> officially?  I think this was intended but perhaps was overlooked or
>  >>> something.
>  >>
>  >> Report noted; thanks.  A solution is being worked.
>  >
>  > There's been no forward progress on this.  If you're comfortable getting the 
> util-linux source
>  > package through Cygwin setup*.exe, you can follow the steps shown in
>  > https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-apps/2020-March/039855.html to build 
> (with cygport) a local copy
>  > of util-linux that includes a taskset.exe you can move into /usr/local/bin, 
> for example.
>  >
>  > You might try that route if you're up for it.  Feel free to ask questions 
> here if you hit a snag.
>  > HTH,
> Thank you, Mark.  I decided to give it a try and got some distance, but hit a snag.
> First, I had to change configure.ac to add control to disable ionice (Cygwin
> does not support a required syscall) while still trying to build taskset.
> Previously taskset and ionice (and one other program) were controlled by the
> single --enable-schedutils.
> Now, including sched.h does not provide the prototypes for sched_getaffinity,
> etc.  I found a previous post that suggests we need to do -D_GNU_SOURCE for it
> to work.  I am not sure of the best place to stick that, but I will see about
> maybe a one line patch to taskset.c or something.

Rats.  Sorry you've hit some snags.  Are you compiling directly with 'make' or 
the preferred 'cygport util-linux.cygport build'?  With the latter I didn't need 
to make any changes to the source tree; all mods were accomplished with the new 
patch file and changes to util-linux.cygport itself.


More information about the Cygwin mailing list