From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262164AbTKYQeZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:34:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262176AbTKYQeZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:34:25 -0500 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:28679 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262164AbTKYQeN (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:34:13 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 11:23:07 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Davidsen To: Nick Piggin cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] generalise scheduling classes In-Reply-To: <3FC2B487.8080709@cyberone.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > 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. You didn't say new, I wasn't correcting you, just thought that the historical perspective might be interesting. I would love to try the new scheduler, but my test computer is not pleased with Fedora. -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.