Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:44:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:44:32 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.224.33.161]:28551 "EHLO holomorphy") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 13:44:31 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:47:16 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Ingo Molnar Cc: shreenivasa H V , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Gang Scheduling in linux Message-ID: <20020717174716.GI1096@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , Ingo Molnar , shreenivasa H V , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References:

Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: brief message Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 798 Lines: 18 On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 07:40:19PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > you are right in that the Linux scheduler does not enable classic > gang-scheduling: where multiple processes are scheduled 'at once' on > multiple CPUs. Can you point out specific (real-life) workloads where this > would be advantegous? Some testcode would be the best form of expressing > this. Pretty much any job that uses sane (kernel-based or kernel-helped) > synchronization should see good throughput. I will not advocate it myself. I only remembered the definition. Cheers, Bill - 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/