lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:2.425 / U:0.652 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site