From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Feb 14 21:21:50 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id VAA03618 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:21:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from apollo.backplane.com (apollo.backplane.com [209.157.86.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA03605 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:21:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon@apollo.backplane.com) Received: (from dillon@localhost) by apollo.backplane.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) id VAA12394; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:21:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dillon) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 21:21:46 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon Message-Id: <199902150521.VAA12394@apollo.backplane.com> To: Matthew Jacob Cc: Jaye Mathisen , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Processor affinity? References: Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG :> maintain reasonable balancing across the system), but doesn't make much :> sense if you only have 2-4. :> :> Note that processor affinity scheduling is different from hard-assigning :> a process to a processor. Even so, there are very few circumstances where :> even hard-assigning will do a better job then letting the scheduler do it. :> : :Doesn't it also really depend upon the cache architecture? Not particularly. -Matt Matthew Dillon To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message