Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 14 Dec 2003 04:32:45 +0000 | From | Jamie Lokier <> | Subject | Re: [CFT][RFC] HT scheduler |
| |
Nick Piggin wrote: > >Shared runqueues sound like a simplification to describe execution units > >which have shared resourses and null cost of changing units. You can do > >that by having a domain which behaved like that, but a shared runqueue > >sounds better because it would eliminate the cost of even considering > >moving a process from one sibling to another. > > You are correct, however it would be a miniscule cost advantage, > possibly outweighed by the shared lock, and overhead of more > changing of CPUs (I'm sure there would be some cost).
Regarding the overhead of the shared runqueue lock:
Is the "lock" prefix actually required for locking between x86 siblings which share the same L1 cache?
-- Jaime - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |