[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.6.4-mm1
> > For SMT there is a patch from Intel pending that teaches x86-64
> > to set up the SMT scheduler. They said they got slightly better
> > benchmark results. The SMT setup seems to be racy though.
> Am I correct in thinking that this patch provides the necessary hooks to
> integrate x86_4 into the new functionality which sched-domains provides, or
> is the Intel patch independent of sched-domains?

It sets up the sched-domains code to know about HyperThreading CPUs
on x86-64 too (basically same thing as the i386 code does with a
few minor tweaks)

So it's dependent on that.

I will send it to you in separate mail.

> > Some kind of SMT scheduler is definitely needed, we have a serious
> > regression compared to 2.4 here right now. I'm not sure this
> > is the right approach though, it seems to be far too complex.
> Well that's discouraging. I really do want to push this thing along a bit.
> Yours is the only report of regression of which I am aware. Is the reason
> understood?

I think the reason is that it doesn't do balance on clone/fork. The
normal scheduler also doesn't do that, but for some reason it still does
better on the benchmarks (but worse than the old 2.4 -aa/Intel O(1) HT

> And is anyone developing alternative SMT enhancements?

I thought there was a patch from Ingo Molnar? ("shared runqueue")
I must admit I never tried it, just remember seeing the patches.

Also I've been playing with the entitlement scheduler to fix
some of the interactivity problems I have on UP, but it also
seems to still have problems.

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 14:01    [W:0.220 / U:0.932 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site