From owner-freebsd-smp Fri Jun 29 14:14:17 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from a.mx.everquick.net (a.mx.everquick.net [216.89.137.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36AFD37B405; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 14:14:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net) Received: from localhost (eddy@localhost) by a.mx.everquick.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f5TLE7U14825; Fri, 29 Jun 2001 21:14:07 GMT X-EverQuick-No-Abuse: Report any e-mail abuse to Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 21:14:06 +0000 (GMT) From: "E.B. Dreger" To: Matthew Rogers Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: RE: CPU affinity hinting In-Reply-To: <002001c100d8$2c406c40$a2962640@bear> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 13:14:58 -0700 > From: Matthew Rogers > > Why not just use First in line, Next processor available ? Then you > wouldn't care what processor did which task. That was my question: Would the added complexity of "CPU affinity hinting" be worth the reduction in cache misses and switching processes, by preventing long-running processes from constantly switching CPUs? FILNPA is fine for short-lived processes, but longer-running ones switch CPUs, perhaps unnecessarily. > Hmm, maybe even have each processor a dedicated memory space, and > programmable functionality. > > Oops, that's a Field Programmable Gate Array, and there going to make > Legacy computing look stupid. FPGAs, mmmm. Transputers, mmmm. Neuromatrix, mmmm. > In my mind, you have a need for multiprocessing Non-specific and > Specific tasking. > > In some ways we are multiprocessing anyway on some level. Videocard 3d > processing, sound card. You mean that Winmodems and main memory-based video aren't the keys to high performance? You mean that Intel is being silly when they justify faster chips by saying "now you can eliminate three $20 DSPs by buying our latest architecture"? :-) > So why do we need a GOD chip, ie the "chipset" controlling access to > processors and busses ? > > That's because that's the way it was done before the 286. > > Time to leave the bus. :) Arguably so from a hardware standpoint. But, in the mean time, I was trying to think of ways to help SMP performance. :-) Eddy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to , or you are likely to be blocked. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message