RE: [RFC] Implementing temporal affinity

From: Rik van Riel (
Date: Fri Aug 25 2000 - 15:47:55 EST

On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Chris Swiedler wrote:

> > > B only ran for 15 cycles, and therefore it ISN'T the time-affinity
> > process.
> >
> > But it is. It's run long enough to load the CPU cache with it's own
> > instructions and data. Since you are trying to preserve the CPU cache,
> > you want it to run again instead of something else. Right?
> We would only set last_cpu IF the process has run for N cycles,
> where N is enough to fill the CPU cache. If 15 cycles loads the
> cache, then N=15. So in that case, B's last_cpu would be set,
> and it would be tied to that processor. The actual value is
> tunable, and depends largely on the size of the L2 cache.

That doesn't make much sense. If a process gave up the CPU
after very few cycles (because vi was ready echoing back
the key you typed), it has everything it needed to do that
in the cache...



"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
       -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 31 2000 - 21:00:16 EST