From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 25 05:19:44 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0536416A417; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 05:19:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from webaccess-cl.virtdom.com (webaccess-cl.virtdom.com [216.240.101.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB1C813C455; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 05:19:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from [192.168.1.107] (cpe-24-94-75-93.hawaii.res.rr.com [24.94.75.93]) (authenticated bits=0) by webaccess-cl.virtdom.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lBP5JeGG048514; Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:19:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2007 19:21:10 -1000 (HST) From: Jeff Roberson X-X-Sender: jroberson@desktop To: David Xu In-Reply-To: <47707EA2.8010002@freebsd.org> Message-ID: <20071224191954.Q73903@desktop> References: <20071219211025.T899@desktop> <476B1973.6070902@freebsd.org> <20071222183700.L5866@fledge.watson.org> <476F0EE5.1040404@freebsd.org> <601bffc40712241909t10e6f3k8e7940d387b6efc2@mail.gmail.com> <47707EA2.8010002@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Brian McGinty , Robert Watson , arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linux compatible setaffinity. X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2007 05:19:44 -0000 On Tue, 25 Dec 2007, David Xu wrote: > Brian McGinty wrote: >> On Dec 23, 2007 5:44 PM, David Xu wrote: >>> Robert Watson wrote: >>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, David Xu wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't say no to these interfaces, but there is a need to tell user >>>>> which cpus are sharing cache, or memory distance is closest enough, >>>>> and which cpus are servicing interrupts, e.g, network interrupt and >>>>> disks etc, etc, otherwise, blindly setting cpu affinity mask only can >>>>> shoot itself in the foot. >>>> While the Mac OS X API is pretty Mach-specific, it's worth taking a look >>>> at their recently-announced affinity API: >>>> >>>> http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/Performance/RN-AffinityAPI/index.html >>>> >>>> >>>> Robert N M Watson >>>> Computer Laboratory >>>> University of Cambridge >>>> >>> >>> I like the interfaces, it is more flexible. >> >> I agree. May I as k what's being planned? It's Jeffs' call finally I think. >> >> Brian. > > I don't have plan. ;-) If I understand it correctly, it is a hint to > scheduler, it is better describing thread relationship, while Jeff's > interface is a hard cpu binding interface, it is still needed in some > circumstance. Yes, I don't think they're exclusive. However, the system scheduler makes some observations about what threads might be best placed near each other. I have plans to make ULE even smarter in this regard so that the application developers would almost never need to hint it. I think these kinds of hints are not often correct or very useful anyway. Thanks, Jeff > > Regards, > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >