From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Feb 14 22:39:05 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA11874 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:39:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from feral.com (feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA11869 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:39:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Received: from localhost (mjacob@localhost) by feral.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA29515; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:38:43 -0800 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:38:43 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob X-Sender: mjacob@feral-gw Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: Matthew Dillon cc: Jaye Mathisen , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Processor affinity? In-Reply-To: <199902150521.VAA12394@apollo.backplane.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Really? Hmm.. I would have thought for a machine that with local cache but expensive global access (e.g., sun4d architecture) that affinity is a win. Oh well, not my area of expertise. On Sun, 14 Feb 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: > :> 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