* Peter Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's a lot of ugly code in the load balancer that is only there to
> overcome the side effects of SMT and dual core. A lot of it was put
> there by Intel employees trying to make load balancing more friendly
> to their systems. What I'm suggesting is that an N CPUs per runqueue
> is a better way of achieving that end. I may (of course) be wrong but
> I think that the idea deserves more consideration than you're willing
> to give it.
i actually implemented that some time ago and i'm afraid it was ugly as
hell and pretty fragile. Load-balancing gets simpler, but task picking
gets alot uglier.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
