[lkml]   [2003]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [CFT][RFC] HT scheduler
Nick Piggin wrote:
> >Shared runqueues sound like a simplification to describe execution units
> >which have shared resourses and null cost of changing units. You can do
> >that by having a domain which behaved like that, but a shared runqueue
> >sounds better because it would eliminate the cost of even considering
> >moving a process from one sibling to another.
> You are correct, however it would be a miniscule cost advantage,
> possibly outweighed by the shared lock, and overhead of more
> changing of CPUs (I'm sure there would be some cost).

Regarding the overhead of the shared runqueue lock:

Is the "lock" prefix actually required for locking between x86
siblings which share the same L1 cache?

-- Jaime
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: 2005-03-22 13:59    [W:0.111 / U:10.972 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site