[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4626713B.1040206@nortel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 13:27:55 -0600
From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To: Mark Glines <mark@...nes.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ck list <ck@....kolivas.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [ck] Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely
Fair Scheduler [CFS]
Mark Glines wrote:
> One minor question: is it even possible to be completely fair on SMP?
> For instance, if you have a 2-way SMP box running 3 applications, one of
> which has 2 threads, will the threaded app have an advantage here? (The
> current system seems to try to keep each thread on a specific CPU, to
> reduce cache thrashing, which means threads and processes alike each
> get 50% of the CPU.)
I think the ideal in this case would be to have both threads on one cpu,
with the other app on the other cpu. This gives inter-process fairness
while minimizing the amount of task migration required.
More interesting is the case of three processes on a 2-cpu system. Do
we constantly migrate one of them back and forth to ensure that each of
them gets 66% of a cpu?
Chris
-
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