Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 20:47:50 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: Jaye Mathisen <mrcpu@internetcds.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Processor affinity? Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9902142047020.29164-100000@feral-gw> In-Reply-To: <199902150410.UAA12131@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> as trying to keep a process on a specific cpu. Whatever algorithm is > chosen must deal with the situation under a greater process load. Often, > as on IRIX 6.1 boxes, affinity could make things worse rather then better > by unbalancing the cpu's. Processor affinity makes sense when you have > a lot of processors ( you can schedule a process to a group of cpu's to > maintain reasonable balancing across the system), but doesn't make much > sense if you only have 2-4. > > Note that processor affinity scheduling is different from hard-assigning > a process to a processor. Even so, there are very few circumstances where > even hard-assigning will do a better job then letting the scheduler do it. > Doesn't it also really depend upon the cache architecture? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" 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.4.04.9902142047020.29164-100000>