Messages in this thread | | | From | Rusty Russell <> | Subject | Re: [CFT][RFC] HT scheduler | Date | Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:24:12 +1100 |
| |
In message <3FD7F1B9.5080100@cyberone.com.au> you write: > http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/w26/ > Against 2.6.0-test11 > > This includes the SMT description for P4. Initial results shows comparable > performance to Ingo's shared runqueue's patch on a dual P4 Xeon.
I'm still not convinced. Sharing runqueues is simple, and in fact exactly what you want for HT: you want to balance *runqueues*, not CPUs. In fact, it can be done without a CONFIG_SCHED_SMT addition.
Your patch is more general, more complex, but doesn't actually seem to buy anything. It puts a general domain structure inside the scheduler, without putting it anywhere else which wants it (eg. slab cache balancing). My opinion is either (1) produce a general NUMA topology which can then be used by the scheduler, or (2) do the minimal change in the scheduler which makes HT work well.
Note: some of your changes I really like, it's just that I think this is overkill.
I'll produce a patch so we can have something solid to talk about.
Cheers, Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - 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/
| |