[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1247560935.7500.48.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:42:15 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Raistlin <raistlin@...ux.it>
Cc: Henrik Austad <henrik@...tad.us>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Bill Huey <billh@...ppy.monkey.org>,
Linux RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Fabio Checconi <fabio@...dalf.sssup.it>,
"James H. Anderson" <anderson@...unc.edu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Douglas Niehaus <niehaus@...c.ku.edu>,
Ted Baker <baker@...fsu.edu>,
Dhaval Giani <dhaval.giani@...il.com>
Subject: Re: RFC for a new Scheduling policy/class in the Linux-kernel
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 18:06 +0200, Raistlin wrote:
> Anyway, maybe if, on some architecture, for some kind of application,
> the affinity may have been set to preserve some kind actual cache or
> memory locality for the task access pattern, maybe this could be an
> issue, couldn't it? :-)
> I mean, in some case where being sure of having a task running on a
> particular CPU is somehow of paramount importance...
Right, and you answered your own question :-), its _running_ that is
important, so as long as its blocked (not running), you're free to place
the task on another cpu if that helps out with something.
--
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