Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Dec 2003 02:59:04 +1100 | From | Anton Blanchard <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][RFC] make cpu_sibling_map a cpumask_t |
| |
> I'm not aware of any reason why the kernel should not become generally > SMT aware. It is sufficiently different to SMP that it is worth > specialising it, although I am only aware of P4 and POWER5 implementations.
I agree, SMT is likely to become more popular in the coming years.
> I have an alternative to Ingo's HT scheduler which basically does > the same thing. It is showing a 20% elapsed time improvement with a > make -j3 on a 2xP4 Xeon (4 logical CPUs). > > Before Ingo's is merged, I would like to discuss the pros and cons of > both approaches with those interested. If Ingo's is accepted I should > still be able to port my other SMP/NUMA improvements on top of it.
Sounds good, have you got anything to test? I can throw it on a POWER5.
Anton - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |