On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> Do you have that code working already (presumably needs locking
> changes)? I seem to recall something like that existing already, but I
> don't recall if it was ever fully working or not ...
yes, i have a HT testbox and working code:
the patch is rather old, i'll update it to 2.5.59.
> I think the large PPC64 boxes have multilevel NUMA as well - two real
> phys cores on one die, sharing some cache (L2 but not L1? Anton?). And
> SGI have multilevel nodes too I think ... so we'll still need multilevel
> NUMA at some point ... but maybe not right now.
Intel's HT is the cleanest case: pure logical cores, which clearly need
special handling. Whether the other SMT solutions want to be handled via
the logical-cores code or via another level of NUMA-balancing code,
depends on benchmarking results i suspect. It will be one more flexibility
that system maintainers will have, it's all set up via the
sched_map_runqueue(cpu1, cpu2) boot-time call that 'merges' a CPU's
runqueue into another CPU's runqueue. It's basically the 0th level of
balancing, which will be fundamentally different. The other levels of
balancing are (or should be) similar to each other - only differing in
weight of balancing, not differing in the actual algorithm.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:23 EST