Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 18:14:19 -0300 (BRST) From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> To: "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@sneakerz.org>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, "Michael C . Wu" <keichii@peorth.iteration.net>, <smp@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: per cpu runqueues, cpu affinity and cpu binding. Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33L.0107021811010.24249-100000@imladris.rielhome.conectiva> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0107021948020.17878-100000@www.everquick.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, E.B. Dreger wrote: > > Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:11:13 -0500 > > From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@sneakerz.org> > > > > As a side issue I plan on NOT ALLOWING multiple KSEs (thread > > > carriers?) from the same thread group in the same process to be on the > > > same processor. SO load balancing and processor affinity will not > > > apply to the thread-carrying entities (KSEs). Of course the userland > > Why force things? Again, going back to affinity hinting... IMHO affinity hinting should be just that. Anything more is likely to be a solution in search of a problem ;) [yes, there are a few special cases where it may help, but it would be a bit early in the SMPng project to start worrying about those when there are more serious issues to fix ... such as locks which are known to give contention ;)] regards, Rik -- Virtual memory is like a game you can't win; However, without VM there's truly nothing to lose... http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/ Send all your spam to aardvark@nl.linux.org (spam digging piggy) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.33L.0107021811010.24249-100000>