Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 13:32:26 -0700 (PDT) From: seanj <seanj@speakeasy.org> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@sneakerz.org>, "Michael C . Wu" <keichii@peorth.iteration.net>, "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>, "smp@FreeBSD.ORG" <smp@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: per cpu runqueues, cpu affinity and cpu binding. Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33L2.0107021319420.22067-100000@grace.speakeasy.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107021449340.13213-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/smt/ http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/smt/papers/ieee_micro.pdf http://www.bearcave.com/software/java/comp_links.html Supposedly an upcomping XEON processor will have SMT / ILP. Not to prognosticate but I think having TEUs (thread execution units) will be a very good idea (tm). What about architectures where the CPUs might share the same L2/L3 cache? Multichip modules or multiple on die cpus? IBM Power4? Two procs, one L2. http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG19990804S0023 http://arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/majc/majc-1.html This is very probably most likely sorta in our near future. Sean. On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > * Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> [010702 14:58] wrote: > > > > > > If you select to run 2 thread carriers (see other mail on nomenclature)> > > > (KSEs) then you have specifically asked for 2 processors worth of > > > concurrency so we ASSUME you know what you are doing.. If you want to run > > > all the threads on a single processor to get better cache activity, then > > > you should't ASK to run on 2 (or more) processors. > > > > Agreed, however don't forget about the multiple thread execution > > units that may become available, meaning that as long as you share > > an address space you can run two (or more) threads in parrallel on > > a single processor. You wouldn't want to preclude us of taking > > advantage of that if it becomes available. > > If that architecture takes off (I have my doubts.. ALPHA was the only one > trying that), then we can change the rules about only allowing one thread > container per processor (and limit it to the number of thread execution > units). > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.33L2.0107021319420.22067-100000>