On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Michael Hohnbaum wrote:
> > (NUMA systems which have tightly coupled CPUs with a smaller cache and
> > protected by a large L3 cache might benefit from sharing the runqueue as
> > well - but the target for this concept is SMT.)
>
> Sharing a runqueue for all processors on a node of a NUMA system has the
> drawback of not accounting for cache warmth for processes. [...]
hence the 'might'.
> [...] Ideally, for a NUMA system there should continue to be individual
> runqueues per cpu (or per set of HT processors), and then a grouping of
> runqueues at the node level. At load balancing, priority should be to
> redispatch on the same processor, followed by on the same node. The
> pain threshold for crossing the node boundary will vary depending on the
> NUMA-ness of the hardware, so it would be good to account for this in
> the scheduler.
agreed.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 22:00:20 EST