Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 22:38:43 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Jaye Mathisen <mrcpu@internetcds.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Processor affinity? Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9902142237100.29513-100000@feral-gw> In-Reply-To: <199902150521.VAA12394@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Really? Hmm.. I would have thought for a machine that with local cache but expensive global access (e.g., sun4d architecture) that affinity is a win. Oh well, not my area of expertise. On Sun, 14 Feb 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: > :> 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? > > Not particularly. > > -Matt > Matthew Dillon > <dillon@backplane.com> > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.04.9902142237100.29513-100000>