RE: [ckrm-tech] [RFC PATCH] scheduler: Dynamic sched_domains

[Matthew Dobson]

On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 21:12, Marc E. Fiuczynski wrote:
> > ... thus making supporting interesting NUMA machines
> > and SMT machines easier.
> 
> Would you be so kind and elaborate on the SMT part.
> 
> Marc

Contrary to Paul's posting that no one saw, SMT is not a typo. ;)  What
I was trying to get at is that there are already several differing
implementations of SMT (Synchronous Multi-Threading) with different
names and different characteristics.  Right now, they're all kind of
handled the same.  In the future, however, I see each architecture
defining their own SD_SIBLING_INIT for sibling domains, allowing their
own cache timings, balancing rates, etc.  I feel that it would be easier
to support potentially complicated and/or dynamic sibling 'CPU'
relationships with my patch.  We've already run into some issues with
hotplugging the siblings of 'real' CPUs on/off, and how the current
sched_domains handles that.  Currently, as the code is static and based
on config options rather than runtime variables, it tends to leave a
single CPU in it's own domain, balancing amongst itself with no sibling
(b/c it's been hotplugged off and CONFIG_SCHED_SMT is on).  My code was
written with dynamic runtime changes in mind to prevent these kinds of
suboptimal situations.

-Matt

-
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/