Re: [CFT][RFC] HT scheduler

Nick Piggin
2003-12-11T16:41:16Z

Kevin P. Fleming wrote:

> Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>> http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/w26/
>> Against 2.6.0-test11
>>
>> This includes the SMT description for P4. Initial results shows
>> comparable
>> performance to Ingo's shared runqueue's patch on a dual P4 Xeon.
>>
>
> Is there any value in testing/using this on a single CPU P4-HT system,
> or is it only targeted at multi-CPU systems?

Yes hopefully there is value in it. Its probably very minor, but it
recognises there is no cache penalty when moving between virtual CPUs,
so it should be able to keep them busy more often.

As I said it would be very minor.