From: Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
To: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>
Cc: suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, akpm@osdl.org, kernel@kolivas.org,
npiggin@suse.de, mingo@elte.hu, rostedt@goodmis.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] sched: remove smpnice
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:44:32 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060214154432.9a4f8a0c.pj@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43F25C60.4080603@bigpond.net.au>
Peter wrote:
> In these circumstances, moving the task
> to an idle CPU should be a "good thing" unless the time taken for the
> move is longer than the time that will pass before the task becomes the
> running task on its current CPU.
Even then, it's not always a "good thing".
The less of the cache-memory hierarchy the two CPUs share, the greater
the penalty to the task for memory accesses after the move.
At one extreme, two hyperthreads on the same core share essentially all
the memory hierarchy, so have no such penalty.
At the other extreme, two CPUs at opposite ends of a big NUMA box have,
so far as performance is concerned, quite different views of the memory
hierarchy. A task moved to a far away CPU will be cache cold for
several layers of core, package, board, and perhaps router hierarchy,
and have slower access to its main memory pages.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com> 1.925.600.0401
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-14 23:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-02-07 14:28 [rfc][patch] sched: remove smpnice Nick Piggin
2006-02-07 14:57 ` Con Kolivas
2006-02-07 15:05 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-07 22:15 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-07 23:11 ` Con Kolivas
2006-02-07 23:36 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-08 3:28 ` Nick Piggin
2006-02-08 14:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-02-10 7:01 ` Siddha, Suresh B
2006-02-10 7:17 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-10 7:23 ` Con Kolivas
2006-02-10 9:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2006-02-11 1:27 ` Peter Williams
2006-02-11 2:00 ` Andrew Morton
2006-02-12 1:13 ` Peter Williams
2006-02-12 23:10 ` Peter Williams
2006-02-13 1:06 ` Peter Williams
2006-02-14 0:37 ` Peter Williams
2006-02-14 8:53 ` Siddha, Suresh B
2006-02-11 3:36 ` Peter Williams
2006-02-11 4:04 ` Peter Williams
2006-02-14 9:07 ` Siddha, Suresh B
2006-02-14 22:40 ` Peter Williams
2006-02-14 23:44 ` Paul Jackson [this message]
2006-02-15 0:09 ` Peter Williams
2006-02-15 1:00 ` Paul Jackson
2006-02-15 7:07 ` Siddha, Suresh B
2006-02-15 22:36 ` Peter Williams
2006-02-15 23:29 ` Peter Williams
2006-02-13 14:12 ` Con Kolivas
2006-02-07 23:20 ` Peter Williams
2006-02-07 23:29 ` Con Kolivas
2006-02-07 23:36 ` Martin Bligh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060214154432.9a4f8a0c.pj@sgi.com \
--to=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=kernel@kolivas.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=pwil3058@bigpond.net.au \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox