[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 09:47 -0400, Christoph Lameter wrote:
    > On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, raz ben yehuda wrote:
    > > How will the kernel is going to handle 32 processors machines ? These
    > > numbers are no longer a science-fiction.
    > The kernel is already running on 4096 processor machines. Dont worry about
    > that.
    > > What i am suggesting is merely a different approach of how to handle
    > > multiple core systems. instead of thinking in processes, threads and so
    > > on i am thinking in services. Why not take a processor and define this
    > > processor to do just firewalling ? encryption ? routing ? transmission ?
    > > video processing... and so on...
    > I think that is a valuable avenue to explore. What we do so far is
    > treating each processor equally. Dedicating a processor has benefits in
    > terms of cache hotness and limits OS noise.
    > Most of the large processor configurations already partition the system
    > using cpusets in order to limit the disturbance by OS processing. A set of
    > cpus is used for OS activities and system daemons are put into that set.
    > But what can be done is limited because the OS threads as well as
    > interrupt and timer processing etc cannot currently be moved. The ideas
    > that you are proposing are particularly usedful for applications that
    > require low latencies and cannot tolerate OS noise easily (Infiniband MPI
    > base jobs f.e.)

    My 0.2 cents:

    I have always been fascinated by the idea of controlling another cpu
    from the main CPU.

    Usually these cpus are custom, run proprietary software, and have no
    datasheet on their I/O interfaces.

    But, being able to turn an ordinary CPU into something like that seems
    to be very nice.

    For example, It might help with profiling. Think about a program that
    can run uninterrupted how much it wants.

    I might even be better, if the dedicated CPU would use a predefined
    reserved memory range (I wish there was a way to actually lock it to
    that range)

    On the other hand, I could see this as a jump platform for more
    proprietary code, something like that: we use linux in out server
    platform, but out "insert buzzword here" network stack pro+ can handle
    100% more load that linux does, and it runs on a dedicated core....

    In the other words, we might see 'firmwares' that take an entire cpu for
    their usage.

    > --
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    > the body of a message to
    > More majordomo info at
    > Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-08-26 16:47    [W:0.022 / U:44.796 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site