Re: [PATCH] 2.6.0 batch scheduling, HT aware

[Bill Davidsen]

Con Kolivas wrote:

> I discussed this with Ingo and that's the sort of thing we thought of. Perhaps 
> a relative crossover of 10 dynamic priorities and an absolute crossover of 5 
> static priorities before things got queued together. This is really only 
> required for the UP HT case.

What? Do siblings in Xeons not compete for cache and memory bandwidth, 
executions units, and the like?

--
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  CTO TMR Associates, Inc
  Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/