On Sat, 2008-09-06 at 11:30 -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
quoted text
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:
> > As an OS one COULD decide to just not schedule the nice task at all,
> > but then, especially on atom where HT has a high efficiency, your cpu
> > is mostly idle ...
> 
> One thread being idle is even on Atom the right thing to do in some
> situations.  If you have processes which, when HT is used, experience
> high pressure on the common cache(s) then you should not schedule them
> together.  We can theoretically find out whether this is the case
> using the PMCs.  With perfmon2 hopefully on the horizon soon it might
> actually be possible to automatically make these measurements.
> 
> There is another aspect I talked to Peter about already.  We really
> want concurrent threat scheduling in some cases.  For the
> implementation of helper threads you don't want two threads to be
> scheduled independently, you want them to be scheduled on a HT pair.
> Currently this isn't possible except by pinning them to fixed threads.
>  We really want to have a new way to express this type of scheduling
> (Peter, how did you call it?)

Really helps if you make sure I'm on the CC ;-)

I think I called it something like affinity grouping - but I'm still a
bit scared of the bin-packing issues involved - those will really mess
up the already complex balancing rules.

--
unsubscribe notice
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/