On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, James Manning wrote:
> [ Thursday, January 20, 2000 ] Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > I am not sure if it worth to have the cacheline penality in 2.4.x
> > consdiering I don't like by-hand settings, and that the scheduler
> > algorithm should have the best values as default.
>
> I'm hoping that with testing over a large number of SMP systems (dual
> celeries -> 8-way 2MB xeon's at least) that there's enough effective
> overlap to make this possible... if the "best" values for a given accepted
> workload vary largely enough over a range of machines, we could pick the
> "least damage" value and possible have a CONFIG_ option for "Tunable
> SMP scheduling"? Or would that still be a poor choice for 2.4.x?
what might be nice is having the kernel configuration process select the
proper constant values based on the CPU hardware type you've selected, and
whether SMP is enabled.
- Chuck Lever
-- corporate: <chuckl@netscape.com> personal: <chucklever@netscape.net> or <cel@monkey.org>The Linux Scalability project: http://www.citi.umich.edu/projects/linux-scalability/
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:26 EST