From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:51:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:51:13 -0500 Received: from home.alltec.com ([66.46.63.194]:45041 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:51:12 -0500 Message-ID: <3E5BD9A2.6090705@alltec.com> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:01:22 -0500 From: Mike Sullivan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Hahn , linux-kernel Subject: Re: Scheduling with Hyperthreading References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Mark I would to a quick snap with top, and when I saw 99.9% I assumed the the process had been there during the time top was starting up. Looking at /proc/(pid)/cpu, shows that with two jobs running they are sticking to cpu 0 and 1 which are siblings Regards Mike Mark Hahn wrote: >>that if I run two compute intensive jobs on a Dual Xeon, the processes >>run on separate >>physical cpus and can spend a significant amount of time with both on a >>single >>cpu. >> >> > >how did you determine this? running another program, such as top, >will naturally disturb the scheduler and corrupt any observations. >the only means I can think of is to look in /proc//cpu near >very infrequently (ideally, just before the processes exit.) >or is this what you've done? > > -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Sullivan Director Performance Computing @lliance Technologies, Voice: (416) 385-3255, 18 Wynford Dr, Suite 407 Fax: (416) 385-1774 Toronto, ON, Canada, M3C-3S2 Toll Free:1-877-216-3199 http://www.alltec.com