In message <E16D6cn-00071w-00@the-village.bc.nu> you write:
> Its not voodoo optimisation, its benchmarked work from Intel.
At the very least, please pass this paraphrase on to the Intel people.
I asserted:
If you number each CPU so its two IDs are smp_num_cpus()/2
apart, you will NOT need to put some crappy hack in the
scheduler to pack your CPUs correctly.
> Perhaps you'd like to submit your PPC64 HT patches to the list today
> so that they can be tried comparitively on the Intel HT and we can see if
> its a better generic solution ?
I apologize: clearly my previous post was far too long, as you
obviously did not read it. There is no sched.c patch.
> For 2.5 the scheduler needs a rewrite anyway so its a non issue there.
Disagree. Without widespread understanding of how the simple
scheduler works, writing a more complex one is doomed.
The Intel people, whom you assure me "know what their chip needs"
obviously have trouble understanding the subtleties of the current
scheduler. What hope the rest of us?
Rusty.
PS. Alan, go back and READ what my analysis, or this will be a VERY
long thread.
-- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 15 2001 - 21:00:16 EST