On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 07:45:33 +0300, Al Boldi said: > [email protected] wrote: > > On an SMP system, you can have one CPU doing one class of scheduling (long > > timeslice for computational, for example), while another CPU is dedicated > > to doing RT scheduling, and so on. It's not clear to me that "different > > classes per CPU" makes any real sense on a UP.... > > Conceptually there should be no difference between UP and MP. > > Think HyperThreading. Which is why a UP kernel can schedule on both sides of an HT core. Yeah, I got it now. ;) An HT core still *has* "the other instruction stream" it can schedule differetly. You can't say "We'll schedule this one this way and that other one that way" when there *is* no "that other one". (And if you look at the current code, you'll realize that HT is conceptually different from both UP *and* MP - go look at the places where the *current* scheduler is HT-aware, and how that was a big win over when it thought each HT was a fully capable MP......)
Attachment:
pgpDFZIoSQ8x8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- References:
- Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- From: Al Boldi <[email protected]>
- Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- From: Al Boldi <[email protected]>
- Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- From: [email protected]
- Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- From: Al Boldi <[email protected]>
- Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- Prev by Date: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
- Next by Date: Re: [patch 2/2] slab: always consider arch mandated alignment
- Previous by thread: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- Next by thread: Re: [ANNOUNCE][RFC] PlugSched-6.4 for 2.6.18-rc2
- Index(es):
 |