On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 01:20:05PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 07:05:56PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > Well, that's exactly for this that I formulated the proposal. A
> > CPU-intensive application which benefits from the cache would better
> > choose to run on HT pairs. A network-hungry application will prefer
> > running on only one sibling of each HT pair, and probably one process
> > per core, particularly when each core receives one NIC's interrupt.
> > A memory bandwidth intensive application will choose to run on a
> > single NUMA node, etc... So either the application can choose this
> > itself from its understanding of the CPU layout, or it can ask the
> > system "hey, I'd like this type of workload, how many process should
> > I start, and where should I bind them ?".
>
> I think generalising this and having a method to do this in the kernel
> is a much better idea than each application parsing this themselves.
> Things are only getting more and more complex as time goes on,
> and I don't trust application developers to get it right.
>
> Centralising this in the kernel (or maybe even glibc) means we can get
> it right, and have every application benefit. If we get it wrong, we
> fix it, and all the applications are fixed without needing fixing/recompiling.
Agreed.
Even more, support for newer layouts would only require a kernel upgrade
and not an application update. And porting applications to other
architectures would be more transparent.
Regards,
Willy
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
