Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 03:36:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 03:36:39 -0400 Received: from mx2.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:8082 "HELO mx2.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 03:36:38 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 09:45:21 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar To: Michael Hohnbaum Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [patch] "fully HT-aware scheduler" support, 2.5.31-BK-curr In-Reply-To: <3D754BAE.4020402@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1133 Lines: 29 On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Michael Hohnbaum wrote: > > (NUMA systems which have tightly coupled CPUs with a smaller cache and > > protected by a large L3 cache might benefit from sharing the runqueue as > > well - but the target for this concept is SMT.) > > Sharing a runqueue for all processors on a node of a NUMA system has the > drawback of not accounting for cache warmth for processes. [...] hence the 'might'. > [...] Ideally, for a NUMA system there should continue to be individual > runqueues per cpu (or per set of HT processors), and then a grouping of > runqueues at the node level. At load balancing, priority should be to > redispatch on the same processor, followed by on the same node. The > pain threshold for crossing the node boundary will vary depending on the > NUMA-ness of the hardware, so it would be good to account for this in > the scheduler. agreed. Ingo - 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/