lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2

On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Martin J. Bligh wrote:

> Do you have that code working already (presumably needs locking
> changes)? I seem to recall something like that existing already, but I
> don't recall if it was ever fully working or not ...

yes, i have a HT testbox and working code:

http://lwn.net/Articles/8553/

the patch is rather old, i'll update it to 2.5.59.

> I think the large PPC64 boxes have multilevel NUMA as well - two real
> phys cores on one die, sharing some cache (L2 but not L1? Anton?). And
> SGI have multilevel nodes too I think ... so we'll still need multilevel
> NUMA at some point ... but maybe not right now.

Intel's HT is the cleanest case: pure logical cores, which clearly need
special handling. Whether the other SMT solutions want to be handled via
the logical-cores code or via another level of NUMA-balancing code,
depends on benchmarking results i suspect. It will be one more flexibility
that system maintainers will have, it's all set up via the
sched_map_runqueue(cpu1, cpu2) boot-time call that 'merges' a CPU's
runqueue into another CPU's runqueue. It's basically the 0th level of
balancing, which will be fundamentally different. The other levels of
balancing are (or should be) similar to each other - only differing in
weight of balancing, not differing in the actual algorithm.

Ingo

-
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 13:32    [W:0.099 / U:0.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site