| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <45C0FA11.1060303@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:20:33 -0500 From: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com> To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> CC: "Linda W." <lkml@...nx.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: linux scheduler and "cache-mate" processors Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> 1) does the scheduler know enough to try to spread tasks >> equally over both the pairs to make best use of the 16MB total >> cache? (i.e. given cpu bound processes "1" and "2", if they >> are both on CPU "A", then the "C-D" cache remains unused, but >> keeping "1" on "a" and "2" on "C" would tend to minimize >> their caches being consumed by each other. >> > > yes this works just fine > > > >> 2) Since either A&B both have access to the 8MB cache, then >> if a process was running on "A", it seems it would have a >> low migration cost to be scheduled on "B" -- i.e. shouldn't >> the process, if it were migrated to "A"'s "cache-mate", "B", >> be able to benefit by any previous caching done on "A"? >> If that's true, does the scheduler give preference, when >> migrating a process, to a CPU's "cache-mate"? >> > > afaik yes as well > > You do have to enable "Multi-core scheduler support" in the kernel .config, though. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists