Re: [PATCH][RFC] make cpu_sibling_map a cpumask_t

Anton Blanchard
2003-12-08T16:02:13Z

> 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