From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265663AbUABU1h (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:27:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265665AbUABU1h (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:27:37 -0500 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:28688 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265663AbUABU1b (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jan 2004 15:27:31 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: not-for-mail From: Bill Davidsen Newsgroups: mail.linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.0 batch scheduling, HT aware Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:10:52 -0500 Organization: TMR Associates, Inc Message-ID: References: <200312231138.21734.kernel@kolivas.org> <3FE79626.1060105@cyberone.com.au> <200312231224.49069.kernel@kolivas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: gatekeeper.tmr.com 1073074535 6722 192.168.12.10 (2 Jan 2004 20:15:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tmr.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031208 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <200312231224.49069.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Con Kolivas wrote: > I discussed this with Ingo and that's the sort of thing we thought of. Perhaps > a relative crossover of 10 dynamic priorities and an absolute crossover of 5 > static priorities before things got queued together. This is really only > required for the UP HT case. What? Do siblings in Xeons not compete for cache and memory bandwidth, executions units, and the like? -- bill davidsen CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979