Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][RFC] make cpu_sibling_map a cpumask_t | Date | Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:46:48 +1100 |
| |
In message <3FD3FD52.7020001@cyberone.com.au> you write: > 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.
To do it properly, it should be done within the NUMA framework. That would allow generic slab cache optimizations, etc. We'd really need a multi-level NUMA framework for this though.
But patch looks fine.
> 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).
Me too.
My main argument with Ingo's patch (last I looked) was technical: the code becomes clearer if the structures are explicitly split into the "per-runqueue stuff" and the "per-cpu stuff" (containing a my_runqueue pointer).
I'd be very interested in your patch though, Nick.
Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/
| |