Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 01 Sep 1999 16:53:32 -0400 | From | John DeVale <> | Subject | Re: CPU affinity problem? |
| |
Marc -
I noticed this a few months ago, and after consulting this list was told that it was an artifact of the CPU utilization monitoring process. (I was using xosview). I wasn't sure that I bought it though, so I set up some cpu-bound test programs that monitored their scheduling via the proc filesystem and sure enough, they were *not* really bouncing back and forth from CPU to CPU. In about 50 test runs it only realy bounced around on one of them, and I assume that some other process was doing wierd things during that run, rather than it being a scheduling problem.
John
Marc MERLIN wrote: > > I have dual CPU machine on which I run two niced crack processes. > > If I send SIGSTOP to one of the two processes, the remaining crack process > keeps bounces quite between the two CPUs (as shown by the CPU0_Nice and > CPU1_Nice bars in procmeter3), so as to give almost the same load on each > CPU > > I thought that because of CPU affinity, my remaining process was going to be > assigned to the same CPU (at least as long as there isn't enough non niced > work to keep the other CPU busy) > > Is this expected behavior for the scheduler? > (I am running on 2.2.7) > > Thanks, > Marc > -- > Microsoft is to software what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking > > Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ (friendly to non IE browsers) > Finger marc_f@merlins.org for PGP key and other contact information > > - > 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/
- 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/
| |