From owner-freebsd-smp Mon Nov 12 5:20:22 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from is1.mh.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (is1.mh.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp [133.11.205.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D4D737B416 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 05:20:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from is1.mh.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (is1.mh.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp [127.0.0.1]) by is1.mh.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BF121822C for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:20:09 +0900 (JST) Received: from mailhosting.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@mailhosting.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp [133.11.205.3]) by is1.mh.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fACDK9713317 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:20:09 +0900 Received: from ring.myn.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp (cognac.myn.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp [157.82.66.106]) by mailhosting.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AEJ11933; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:20:00 +0900 (JST) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:21:26 +0900 Message-ID: From: Hiroharu Tamaru To: freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cpu affinity Newsgroups: freebsd.smp In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.4.1 (Stand By Me) SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) Emacs/20.7 (i386--freebsd) MULE/4.0 (HANANOEN) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.13.7 - "Awazu") 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 Hi. I was looking for any hack point to set CPU affinity. I found in version 1.3.2.1 of kern/kern_switch.c (a little before 4.4R) that it already had "trivial affinity" implemented in chooseproc(). Is this different from what you are describing here? or has this disappeared in -current during the switch to KSE? I wanted to have a dedicated dual CPU machine for numerical calculations with large memory. Since this is a dedicated machine any hack was fine for me if at all possible. The machine has not arrived yet, so I haven't tested it yet. Can I expect, on 4.4R, to have two calc programs running (mostly) on their own CPU if I set these two processes at, say, rtprio (so that the two will live in a seperate group wrt any other processes)? or I don't even need rtprio? or do I have everything mixed up? Thanks. At Sat, 10 Nov 2001 13:27:37 -0800 (PST), John Baldwin wrote: > > > On 10-Nov-01 Andrew R. Reiter wrote: > > > > Do we have planes to implement some sort of mechanism for supporting cpu > > affinity? That'd be a pretty cool thing to have when 5.0 release time > > comes around. > > In theory that is to be part of KSE where a KSE will choose a thread that last > ran on the current CPU over another thread in the same group. -- Hiroharu Tamaru To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-smp Mon Nov 12 7:48:33 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mail6.speakeasy.net (mail6.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.206]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E5F37B4EC for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:48:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 27273 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2001 15:48:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop.baldwin.cx) ([64.81.54.73]) (envelope-sender ) by mail6.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 12 Nov 2001 15:48:07 -0000 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:48:04 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin To: Hiroharu Tamaru Subject: Re: cpu affinity Cc: freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG 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 On 12-Nov-01 Hiroharu Tamaru wrote: > Hi. > > I was looking for any hack point to set CPU affinity. I > found in version 1.3.2.1 of kern/kern_switch.c (a little > before 4.4R) that it already had "trivial affinity" > implemented in chooseproc(). Is this different from what > you are describing here? or has this disappeared in > -current during the switch to KSE? > > I wanted to have a dedicated dual CPU machine for numerical > calculations with large memory. Since this is a dedicated > machine any hack was fine for me if at all possible. The > machine has not arrived yet, so I haven't tested it yet. > > Can I expect, on 4.4R, to have two calc programs running > (mostly) on their own CPU if I set these two processes at, > say, rtprio (so that the two will live in a seperate group > wrt any other processes)? or I don't even need rtprio? or do > I have everything mixed up? > > Thanks. It might work right in that case. If you only have 1 process, then it tends to bounce back and forth between the CPUs, but if every CPU is loaded and none are idle, you might be able to avoid that problem. > At Sat, 10 Nov 2001 13:27:37 -0800 (PST), > John Baldwin wrote: >> >> >> On 10-Nov-01 Andrew R. Reiter wrote: >> > >> > Do we have planes to implement some sort of mechanism for supporting cpu >> > affinity? That'd be a pretty cool thing to have when 5.0 release time >> > comes around. >> >> In theory that is to be part of KSE where a KSE will choose a thread that >> last >> ran on the current CPU over another thread in the same group. > > -- > Hiroharu Tamaru > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-smp Mon Nov 12 9:11:50 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from is2.mh.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (is2.mh.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp [133.11.205.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5322337B419; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:11:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from is2.mh.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (is2.mh.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp [127.0.0.1]) by is2.mh.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CB50378253; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 02:11:38 +0900 (JST) Received: from mailhosting.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@mailhosting.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp [133.11.205.3]) by is2.mh.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fACHBcs06722; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 02:11:38 +0900 Received: from ring.myn.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp (cognac.myn.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp [157.82.66.106]) by mailhosting.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AEJ12537; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 02:11:21 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 02:12:45 +0900 Message-ID: From: Hiroharu Tamaru To: freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.org Cc: John Baldwin Subject: Re: cpu affinity In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.4.1 (Stand By Me) SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) Emacs/20.7 (i386--freebsd) MULE/4.0 (HANANOEN) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.13.7 - "Awazu") 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 At Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:48:04 -0800 (PST), John Baldwin wrote: > > > On 12-Nov-01 Hiroharu Tamaru wrote: > > Hi. > > > > I was looking for any hack point to set CPU affinity. I > > found in version 1.3.2.1 of kern/kern_switch.c (a little > > before 4.4R) that it already had "trivial affinity" > > implemented in chooseproc(). Is this different from what > > you are describing here? or has this disappeared in > > -current during the switch to KSE? > > > > I wanted to have a dedicated dual CPU machine for numerical > > calculations with large memory. Since this is a dedicated > > machine any hack was fine for me if at all possible. The > > machine has not arrived yet, so I haven't tested it yet. > > > > Can I expect, on 4.4R, to have two calc programs running > > (mostly) on their own CPU if I set these two processes at, > > say, rtprio (so that the two will live in a seperate group > > wrt any other processes)? or I don't even need rtprio? or do > > I have everything mixed up? > > > > Thanks. > > It might work right in that case. If you only have 1 process, then it tends to > bounce back and forth between the CPUs, but if every CPU is loaded and none are > idle, you might be able to avoid that problem. > I see. So, the key here is not to idle any of the CPUs all the time. OK, then. I'll give it a try with one and two processes when the machine arrives, and see if it is worth hacking in the kernel. Originally, since what I need is just a hack, I was thinking to hard code that some processes are ignored by each CPU altogether in chooseproc() (one CPU ignores one calc program, and the other CPU ignores the other), though, at the moment, I don't know what to use for the "label". I assume it should be something tied to a process that can be set by the process itself, and that can easily be seen by chooseproc(). Maybe, I'd steal a byte in p->p_pad, and add a syscall to register a asigned cpuid there, and ignore this process if the other CPU finds it in the run queue? Or maybe just using some arbitrary field like p->p_nice as a label, and get away even without writing a syscall would work for a dedicated system? If there's something obvious to use for the label, please advise me of it. Is this a Bad Idea even as a hack? or is it practical enough for a dedicated system? > > At Sat, 10 Nov 2001 13:27:37 -0800 (PST), > > John Baldwin wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 10-Nov-01 Andrew R. Reiter wrote: > >> > > >> > Do we have planes to implement some sort of mechanism for supporting cpu > >> > affinity? That'd be a pretty cool thing to have when 5.0 release time > >> > comes around. > >> > >> In theory that is to be part of KSE where a KSE will choose a thread that > >> last > >> ran on the current CPU over another thread in the same group. > > > > -- > > Hiroharu Tamaru > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message > > -- > > John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ > PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc > "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ -- Hiroharu Tamaru To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-smp Mon Nov 12 9:46: 1 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BD1537B419; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:45:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (arr@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.11.6/8.11.5) with SMTP id fACHjgw29996; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:45:42 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from arr@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: fledge.watson.org: arr owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:45:41 -0500 (EST) From: "Andrew R. Reiter" X-Sender: arr@fledge.watson.org To: Hiroharu Tamaru Cc: freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin Subject: Re: cpu affinity In-Reply-To: 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 One idea I had been thinking about, tho Im sure others have already thought about doing this many times, is to allow for something like chooseproc() to choose a cpu that is on another machine. So, as a stupid example, say we have a process/thread controlling utility (psctl)... one would be able to: psctl --move --process= --cpu-location=host:cpu# Im not sure how useful this would be for anyone outside myself to use, but would be interesting to see what we could do with SMP and KSE as things become stable later on. Like I said, I believe this work has already been done, but imo is something interesting nevertheless. Andrew On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Hiroharu Tamaru wrote: :At Mon, 12 Nov 2001 07:48:04 -0800 (PST), :John Baldwin wrote: :> :> :> On 12-Nov-01 Hiroharu Tamaru wrote: :> > Hi. :> > :> > I was looking for any hack point to set CPU affinity. I :> > found in version 1.3.2.1 of kern/kern_switch.c (a little :> > before 4.4R) that it already had "trivial affinity" :> > implemented in chooseproc(). Is this different from what :> > you are describing here? or has this disappeared in :> > -current during the switch to KSE? :> > :> > I wanted to have a dedicated dual CPU machine for numerical :> > calculations with large memory. Since this is a dedicated :> > machine any hack was fine for me if at all possible. The :> > machine has not arrived yet, so I haven't tested it yet. :> > :> > Can I expect, on 4.4R, to have two calc programs running :> > (mostly) on their own CPU if I set these two processes at, :> > say, rtprio (so that the two will live in a seperate group :> > wrt any other processes)? or I don't even need rtprio? or do :> > I have everything mixed up? :> > :> > Thanks. :> :> It might work right in that case. If you only have 1 process, then it tends to :> bounce back and forth between the CPUs, but if every CPU is loaded and none are :> idle, you might be able to avoid that problem. :> : :I see. So, the key here is not to idle any of the CPUs all the time. :OK, then. I'll give it a try with one and two processes when the :machine arrives, and see if it is worth hacking in the kernel. : :Originally, since what I need is just a hack, I was thinking to hard :code that some processes are ignored by each CPU altogether in :chooseproc() (one CPU ignores one calc program, and the other CPU :ignores the other), though, at the moment, I don't know what to use :for the "label". : :I assume it should be something tied to a process that can be set by :the process itself, and that can easily be seen by chooseproc(). :Maybe, I'd steal a byte in p->p_pad, and add a syscall to register a :asigned cpuid there, and ignore this process if the other CPU finds it :in the run queue? Or maybe just using some arbitrary field like :p->p_nice as a label, and get away even without writing a syscall :would work for a dedicated system? If there's something obvious to :use for the label, please advise me of it. : :Is this a Bad Idea even as a hack? or is it practical enough for a :dedicated system? : :> > At Sat, 10 Nov 2001 13:27:37 -0800 (PST), :> > John Baldwin wrote: :> >> :> >> :> >> On 10-Nov-01 Andrew R. Reiter wrote: :> >> > :> >> > Do we have planes to implement some sort of mechanism for supporting cpu :> >> > affinity? That'd be a pretty cool thing to have when 5.0 release time :> >> > comes around. :> >> :> >> In theory that is to be part of KSE where a KSE will choose a thread that :> >> last :> >> ran on the current CPU over another thread in the same group. :> > :> > -- :> > Hiroharu Tamaru :> > :> > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org :> > with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message :> :> -- :> :> John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ :> PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc :> "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ : :-- :Hiroharu Tamaru : :To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org :with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message : -- Andrew R. Reiter arr@watson.org arr@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-smp Mon Nov 12 9:59:49 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [216.33.66.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA9037B416; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 09:59:47 -0800 (PST) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id CCA7A81D05; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:59:42 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:59:42 -0600 From: Alfred Perlstein To: "Andrew R. Reiter" Cc: Hiroharu Tamaru , freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin Subject: Re: cpu affinity Message-ID: <20011112115942.N89342@elvis.mu.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from arr@FreeBSD.org on Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 12:45:41PM -0500 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 * Andrew R. Reiter [011112 11:46] wrote: > > One idea I had been thinking about, tho Im sure others have already > thought about doing this many times, is to allow for something like > chooseproc() to choose a cpu that is on another machine. So, as a stupid > example, say we have a process/thread controlling utility (psctl)... one > would be able to: > > psctl --move --process= --cpu-location=host:cpu# > > Im not sure how useful this would be for anyone outside myself to use, but > would be interesting to see what we could do with SMP and KSE as things > become stable later on. Like I said, I believe this work has already been > done, but imo is something interesting nevertheless. I've done this work and proved a small but measurable performance improvement using my method. http://people.freebsd.org/~alfred/bind_cpu.diff I'm not sure if that's the one that'll work ATM, i know that KSE most likely broke it and it doesn't include my patch to psctl to fiddle the boundness of a process. I'll try to look it up again. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-smp Mon Nov 12 15: 5:22 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from raven.mail.pas.earthlink.net (raven.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.39]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4512D37B416; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:05:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from dialup-209.245.136.188.dial1.sanjose1.level3.net ([209.245.136.188] helo=mindspring.com) by raven.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 163Q8k-0003Gl-00; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:05:19 -0800 Message-ID: <3BF055DF.E56B5E84@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:06:07 -0800 From: Terry Lambert Reply-To: tlambert2@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: "Andrew R. Reiter" , Hiroharu Tamaru , freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin Subject: Re: cpu affinity References: <20011112115942.N89342@elvis.mu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > psctl --move --process= --cpu-location=host:cpu# > > > > Im not sure how useful this would be for anyone outside myself to use, but > > would be interesting to see what we could do with SMP and KSE as things > > become stable later on. Like I said, I believe this work has already been > > done, but imo is something interesting nevertheless. > > I've done this work and proved a small but measurable performance > improvement using my method. > > http://people.freebsd.org/~alfred/bind_cpu.diff > > I'm not sure if that's the one that'll work ATM, i know that KSE > most likely broke it and it doesn't include my patch to psctl to > fiddle the boundness of a process. I'll try to look it up again. Alfred's patches are very close to the correct solution; he leaves all the processes in a global run queue, though, which puts them into the same contention domain, so he implements CPU locking, rather than true affinity. Probably the canonically correct approach is the one used by SGI, Cray, Sequent, and others, which is to have per CPU (or per node, in the NUMA case) run queues, and then don't migrate the processes between them except under exceptional circumstances. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message From owner-freebsd-smp Mon Nov 12 22:36:26 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from is1.mh.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (is1.mh.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp [133.11.205.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5462437B416; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:36:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from is1.mh.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (is1.mh.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp [127.0.0.1]) by is1.mh.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20AEB21826F; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:36:17 +0900 (JST) Received: from mailhosting.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (IDENT:mirapoint@mailhosting.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp [133.11.205.3]) by is1.mh.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id fAD6aG724319; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:36:16 +0900 Received: from ring.myn.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp (cognac.myn.rcast.u-tokyo.ac.jp [157.82.66.106]) by mailhosting.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AEJ15447; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:36:08 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 15:37:26 +0900 Message-ID: From: Hiroharu Tamaru To: freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.org Cc: "Andrew R. Reiter" , Hiroharu Tamaru , Alfred Perlstein , John Baldwin , Terry Lambert Subject: Re: cpu affinity In-Reply-To: <20011112115942.N89342@elvis.mu.org> References: <20011112115942.N89342@elvis.mu.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.4.1 (Stand By Me) SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) Emacs/20.7 (i386--freebsd) MULE/4.0 (HANANOEN) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.13.7 - "Awazu") 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 Great! I'll try this patch as well when things get set up. I'll be back again after playing around with them. Thanks again. At Mon, 12 Nov 2001 11:59:42 -0600, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > * Andrew R. Reiter [011112 11:46] wrote: > > > > One idea I had been thinking about, tho Im sure others have already > > thought about doing this many times, is to allow for something like > > chooseproc() to choose a cpu that is on another machine. So, as a stupid > > example, say we have a process/thread controlling utility (psctl)... one > > would be able to: > > > > psctl --move --process= --cpu-location=host:cpu# > > > > Im not sure how useful this would be for anyone outside myself to use, but > > would be interesting to see what we could do with SMP and KSE as things > > become stable later on. Like I said, I believe this work has already been > > done, but imo is something interesting nevertheless. > > I've done this work and proved a small but measurable performance > improvement using my method. > > http://people.freebsd.org/~alfred/bind_cpu.diff > > I'm not sure if that's the one that'll work ATM, i know that KSE > most likely broke it and it doesn't include my patch to psctl to > fiddle the boundness of a process. I'll try to look it up again. > > -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message