lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: RasterMan on linux and threads
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999 raster@rasterman.com wrote:

> hmm - so if i do short bursted threads ( approx < 0.1 seconds each on
> average i guess ) will he get scheduled across spuc or be weighted to
> remain on the same cu due to MM afinity (whihc is why i'd use therads
> since they will share memeory space and MM affinity heavily) - so will
> hey get scheduled across cpu's - i asked san mehat about this and he
> sugsted tey'd end up all being scheduled on the same cpu - giving no
> speedup ?

Well, is there any way you can make the threads last longer?
If they're that short, I don't know if they'd be scheduled on multiple
CPUs or not. The problem being I don't know how much locking has to
happen to create the thread (locking where neither CPU is able to do
much of anything because the kernel is playing w/ memory). If thread
creation is a very small impact, then I'd guess yes.
The problem as I see it w/ what you're talking about is more
a question of if it's worth spawning off a new thread to do the task
or just doing it in the next loop. I have no doubt that the thread
will run on a seperate CPU if you're using pthread's (glibc) and it
needs the CPU time. Though if it's only around for < 0.1 seconds,
not sure that's enough CPU time. But then, it could start on a
different CPU, not sure...

Stephen


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.041 / U:0.676 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site