From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Feb 14 20:48:12 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA00204 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 20:48:12 -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 UAA00198 for ; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 20:48:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mjacob@feral.com) Received: from localhost (mjacob@localhost) by feral.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA29174; Sun, 14 Feb 1999 20:47:50 -0800 Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 20:47:50 -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: <199902150410.UAA12131@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 > as trying to keep a process on a specific cpu. Whatever algorithm is > chosen must deal with the situation under a greater process load. Often, > as on IRIX 6.1 boxes, affinity could make things worse rather then better > by unbalancing the cpu's. Processor affinity makes sense when you have > a lot of processors ( you can schedule a process to a group of cpu's to > 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? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message