From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Feb 14 23:03:09 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id XAA15004 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 23:03:09 -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 XAA14997 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 23:03:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Received: from localhost (mjacob@localhost) by feral.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id XAA29602; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 23:02:56 -0800 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 23:02:56 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob X-Sender: mjacob@feral-gw Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: Matthew Dillon cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Processor affinity? In-Reply-To: <199902150650.WAA12919@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 > > The only issue with processor affinity, really, is the actual load on > the main memory. Processor affinity only makes sense when the load on > main memory is relatively high. Typically, SMP systems have a relatively > low main memory load ( and high L1 and L2 cache memory load ), so until > you have enough cpu's banging on the same main memory to saturate it, > processor affinity is usually wash. It makes sense on a big 32+ cpu > Solaris or SGI system, but not much sense on a 2 or 4 cpu system. Right- I think I knew this. I guess I'm dating myself in that I kept on thinking of how useful processor affinity was on the Kubota (aka 'Ardent') 4 banger MIPS-3000 machines- but the cache architectures of this machine is much more like the SGI systems than the 4 way SMP machines you describe. -matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message