Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:08:06 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][RFC] make cpu_sibling_map a cpumask_t |
| |
Anton Blanchard wrote:
> > >>I'm not aware of any reason why the kernel should not become generally >>SMT aware. It is sufficiently different to SMP that it is worth >>specialising it, although I am only aware of P4 and POWER5 implementations. >> > >I agree, SMT is likely to become more popular in the coming years. > > >>I have an alternative to Ingo's HT scheduler which basically does >>the same thing. It is showing a 20% elapsed time improvement with a >>make -j3 on a 2xP4 Xeon (4 logical CPUs). >> >>Before Ingo's is merged, I would like to discuss the pros and cons of >>both approaches with those interested. If Ingo's is accepted I should >>still be able to port my other SMP/NUMA improvements on top of it. >> > >Sounds good, have you got anything to test? I can throw it on a POWER5. >
It would be great to get some testing on another architecture.
I don't have an architecture independant way to build SMT scheduling descriptions, although with the cpu_sibling_map change, you can copy and paste the code for the P4 if you are able to build a cpu_sibling_map.
I'll just have to add a some bits so SMT and NUMA work together which I will be unable to test. I'll get back to you with some code.
- 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |