From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261841AbTKYBqx (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:46:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261842AbTKYBqw (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:46:52 -0500 Received: from mail-04.iinet.net.au ([203.59.3.36]:44238 "HELO mail.iinet.net.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261841AbTKYBqv (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:46:51 -0500 Message-ID: <3FC2B487.8080709@cyberone.com.au> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:46:47 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030827 Debian/1.4-3 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bill davidsen CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] generalise scheduling classes References: <20031117021511.GA5682@averell> <1010800000.1069532100@[10.10.2.4]> <3FC01817.3090705@cyberone.com.au> <3FC0A0C2.90800@cyberone.com.au> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org bill davidsen wrote: >In article <3FC0A0C2.90800@cyberone.com.au>, >Nick Piggin wrote: > >| We still don't have an HT aware scheduler, which is unfortunate because >| weird stuff like that looks like it will only become more common in future. > >The idea is hardly new, in the late 60's GE (still a mainframe vendor at >that time) was looking at two execution units on a single memory path. >They decided it would have problems with memory bandwidth, what else is >new? > I don't think I said new, but I guess they (SMT, NUMA, CMP) are newish for architectures supported by Linux Kernel. OK NUMA has been around for a while, but the scheduler apparently doesn't work so well for atypical new NUMAs like Opteron.