Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:26:14 +0100 (MET) | From | Paul Witta <> | Subject | Re: SMP Process to CPU locking |
| |
this would be someth. like a so-called process affinity binding to specific cpus to reduce cache-faults, right?
this would require a soft-lock such as "rather take any cpu instead of waiting fo r"my cpu" to become available, as "locking" would prevent other processes from using the locked cpu when the main locked process is in io-wait.
all-in-all this seems far more complicated than "locking" if it is to be implemented without the waste of cpu cycles if the locked process is idle...
so maybe it is easier without...
otoh, if you compare common i386 hardware to eg sun, where affinity binding is common, you ll see that in i386 the memory is at the same "distance" to every processor, while on sun, every processor has it s own ram on the same sbus card. there it makes sense to bind the processor to the app on it s "local" ram.
IMO this corresponds to hardware architecutre which is very uncommon on i386, chrp ppc, alpha, s/390 and so on -- this might be important on sun 3000, 6000, 10000 servers as well as on some hp pa risc machines...
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, NightRanger wrote:
> Is locking a process to a specific CPU under development for this kernel? > > > Kelsey Hudson khudson@ctica.com > Associate Software Engineer > Compendium Technologies, Inc (619) 725-0771 > > -Kicking the computer solves all the problems. Just try it! > > > - > 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/ >
- 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/
| |