![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
>> Not sure how true that turns out to be in practice ... probably depends >> heavily on both the workload (how heavily it's using the cache) and the >> chip (larger caches have proportionately more to lose). >> >> As we go forward in time, cache warmth gets increasingly important, as >> CPUs accelerate speeds quicker than memory. Cache sizes also get larger. >> I'd really like us to be conservative here - the unfairness thing is >> really hard to hit anyway - you need a static number of processes that >> don't ever block on IO or anything. > > Can we keep current behaviour default, and if arches want to > override it they can? And if someone one day does testing to > show it really isn't a good idea, then we can change the default. Well, that should be a pretty easy test to do. I'll try it. M. - 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 14:00 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||