Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:18:34 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: softclock swis not bound to specific cpu Message-ID: <hbhvvu$9eg$2@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <hbhvp3$9eg$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <20091018202407.656c3863.taku@tackymt.homeip.net> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0910191604250.48055@fledge.watson.org> <hbhvp3$9eg$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ivan Voras wrote: > Robert Watson wrote: >> >> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Taku YAMAMOTO wrote: >> >>> I noticed that the softclock threads didn't seem to be bound to any cpu. >>> >>> I'm not sure whether it's the Right Thing (TM) to bind them to the >>> corresponding cpus though: it might be good to give the scheduler a >>> chance to rebalance callouts. >>> >>> I'm about to test the modification like the attached diff. Comments >>> are welcome. >> >> Yes, I think the intent is that they have a "soft" affinity to the CPU >> where the lapic timer is firing, but not a hard binding, allowing them >> to migrate if required. It would be interesting to measure how >> effective that soft affinity is in practice under various loads -- >> presumably the goal would be for the softclock thread to migrate if a >> higher (lower) priority thread is hogging the CPU. > > So why are there NCPU softclock threads if the binding isn't important? Nevermind, I got it - they are not used only for "clock".
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?hbhvvu$9eg$2>