From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265476AbTLHQCN (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:02:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265438AbTLHQCM (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:02:12 -0500 Received: from dp.samba.org ([66.70.73.150]:44450 "EHLO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265476AbTLHQB6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:01:58 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 02:59:04 +1100 From: Anton Blanchard To: Nick Piggin Cc: Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Rusty Russell , Zwane Mwaikambo , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] make cpu_sibling_map a cpumask_t Message-ID: <20031208155904.GF19412@krispykreme> References: <3FD3FD52.7020001@cyberone.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FD3FD52.7020001@cyberone.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I'm not aware of any reason why the kernel should not become generally > SMT aware. It is sufficiently different to SMP that it is worth > specialising it, although I am only aware of P4 and POWER5 implementations. I agree, SMT is likely to become more popular in the coming years. > I have an alternative to Ingo's HT scheduler which basically does > the same thing. It is showing a 20% elapsed time improvement with a > make -j3 on a 2xP4 Xeon (4 logical CPUs). > > Before Ingo's is merged, I would like to discuss the pros and cons of > both approaches with those interested. If Ingo's is accepted I should > still be able to port my other SMP/NUMA improvements on top of it. Sounds good, have you got anything to test? I can throw it on a POWER5. Anton