From owner-freebsd-current Mon Dec 1 09:39:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id JAA24738 for current-outgoing; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 09:39:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current) Received: from pop.uniserve.com (pop.uniserve.com [204.244.156.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id JAA24733 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 09:39:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tom@uniserve.com) Received: from shell.uniserve.com [204.244.210.252] by pop.uniserve.com with smtp (Exim 1.73 #1) id 0xcZn7-0006xF-00; Mon, 1 Dec 1997 09:37:53 -0800 Date: Mon, 1 Dec 1997 09:37:51 -0800 (PST) From: Tom To: Andrzej Bialecki cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SMP: binding process to CPU In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Andrzej Bialecki wrote: > > Use rtprio on that process. If the priority is high enough, the process > > will pretty much hog a CPU. This can be dangerous, as other processes > > may not run at all, but on SMP there is at least one more CPU for other > > processes to run on. > > Well, yes... But I'm pretty sure that the same process gets scheduled on > BOTH processors (I don't know how actually the scheduler does it, > though). So I think that if I bounce rtprio high enough, the process in > question will monopolize BOTH CPU's. Am I right? Well, unless you have kernel threading working, and your process is multi-threaded, it will can only be running on one CPU at a time. > Andrzej Bialecki > > ---------------------+--------------------------------------------------------- > abial@warman.org.pl | if(halt_per_mth > 0) { fetch("http://www.freebsd.org") } > Research & Academic | "Be open-minded, but don't let your brains to fall out." > Network in Poland | All of the above (and more) is just my personal opinion. > ---------------------+--------------------------------------------------------- Tom