Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 14:51:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@sneakerz.org> Cc: "Michael C . Wu" <keichii@peorth.iteration.net>, "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>, smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: per cpu runqueues, cpu affinity and cpu binding. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107021449340.13213-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20010702150228.S84523@sneakerz.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0107021449340.13213-100000>