Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 09:37:49 -0800 From: Arun Sharma <arun@sharma-home.net> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>, smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/18524: The current kernel doesn't keep stats on a per c Message-ID: <20030209173749.GA11072@sharma-home.net> In-Reply-To: <20030206165049.GA11373@sharma-home.net> References: <3E420FBA.90504@sharma-home.net> <XFMail.20030206111315.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20030206165049.GA11373@sharma-home.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I didn't get any feedback on this patch. Should I be posting this somewhere else (-arch ?) ? I think this feature is essential to figure out how well the new scheduler is load-balancing across cpus/hyperthreads. -Arun On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 08:50:49AM -0800, Arun Sharma wrote: > On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 11:13:15AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: > > > and submit a new patch: > > > > > > http://www.sharma-home.net/~adsharma/misc/pcpu-cptime.patch > > > > [...] > > > > Why not stick the cp_time stuff in struct pcpu instead of using an > > array? > > The new patch _is_ putting cp_time in struct pcpu. The old patch in the PR > predates struct pcpu. > > I also chose to leave the existing cp_time alone. One could argue that a user > level tool could sum up the pcpu cp_times to derive the cp_time and > the kernel can avoid dirtying an extra cache line. If people feel > strongly about it, I can skip touching cp_time in the SMP case. It's a > choice between compatibility with UP vs performance. > > -Arun 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?20030209173749.GA11072>