From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262817AbTLIE7a (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:59:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262827AbTLIE7a (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:59:30 -0500 Received: from dp.samba.org ([66.70.73.150]:33502 "EHLO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262817AbTLIE73 (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 23:59:29 -0500 From: Rusty Russell To: Nick Piggin Cc: Ingo Molnar , Anton Blanchard , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Zwane Mwaikambo , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] make cpu_sibling_map a cpumask_t In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:25:54 +1100." <3FD3FD52.7020001@cyberone.com.au> Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:46:48 +1100 Message-Id: <20031209045929.437362C002@lists.samba.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In message <3FD3FD52.7020001@cyberone.com.au> you write: > 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. To do it properly, it should be done within the NUMA framework. That would allow generic slab cache optimizations, etc. We'd really need a multi-level NUMA framework for this though. But patch looks fine. > 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). Me too. My main argument with Ingo's patch (last I looked) was technical: the code becomes clearer if the structures are explicitly split into the "per-runqueue stuff" and the "per-cpu stuff" (containing a my_runqueue pointer). I'd be very interested in your patch though, Nick. Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell.