[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Externalize SLIT table

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Matthew Dobson wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 12:34, Mark Goodwin wrote:
>> Once again however, it depends on the definition of distance. For nodes,
>> we've established it's the ACPI SLIT (relative distance to memory). For
>> cpus, should it be distance to memory? Distance to cache? Registers? Or
>> what?
> That's the real issue. We need to agree upon a meaningful definition of
> CPU-to-CPU "distance". As Jesse mentioned in a follow-up, we can all
> agree on what Node-to-Node "distance" means, but there doesn't appear to
> be much consensus on what CPU "distance" means.

How about we define cpu-distance to be "relative distance to the
lowest level cache on another CPU". On a system that has nodes with
multiple sockets (each supporting multiple cores or HT "CPUs" sharing
some level of cache), when the scheduler needs to migrate a task it would
first choose a CPU sharing the same cache, then a CPU on the same node,
then an off-node CPU (i.e. falling back to node distance).

Of course, I have no idea if that's anything like an optimal or desirable
task migration policy. Probably depends on cache-trashiness of the task
being migrated.

-- Mark
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 14:07    [W:0.090 / U:3.108 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site