Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:57:11 -0500 (EST) | From | raster@rasterma ... | Subject | re: RasterMan on linux and threads |
| |
On 17 Dec, Richard Gooch scribbled: -> raster@rasterman.com writes: -> > On 17 Dec, Dan Kegel scribbled: -> > -> re http://kernelnotes.org/lnxlists/linux-kernel/lk_9912_03/msg00480.html -> > -> -> > -> Rasterman is wrong in saying that all threads run on the same -> > -> > hmm - when did that change ? i thought that was the case and was -> > baked up on hat asumtion by someone else a few weeks ago (primarily -> > the reason being to make sure the threads share caches for speed -> > reasons and to make sure cache concurrency issues are moe easiyl -> > dealt with... well thats what i unerstood... i may be wrong (2.2 or -> > 2.3 may have changed that) -> -> It hasn't changed. Linux always scheduled tasks on available CPUs -> (sans cache affinity heuristics). -> -> IIRC, 1.3.38 was the first kernel with stable SMP support that I -> played with, and it definately scheduled threads on separate CPUs -> (otherwise my threaded compute applications wouldn't have sped up by a -> factor of 2).
hmm - so threads form one process do get scheduled across multiple cpus? in that case i migt yet get a decent speedup (altho i'm giving the memory bus a good kicking whilst i'm at it so i probably wont get a 2x speedup since i'll get memopry contention - or likely will - ut thats to be seen form tests if i can get any decent speedup via threads)
-- --------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) raster@rasterman.com raster@valinux.com raster@enlightenment.org raster@linux.com raster@zip.com.au
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |