Robert Watson wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2009, Taku YAMAMOTO wrote: > >> I noticed that the softclock threads didn't seem to be bound to any cpu. >> >> I'm not sure whether it's the Right Thing (TM) to bind them to the >> corresponding cpus though: it might be good to give the scheduler a >> chance to rebalance callouts. >> >> I'm about to test the modification like the attached diff. Comments >> are welcome. > > Yes, I think the intent is that they have a "soft" affinity to the CPU > where the lapic timer is firing, but not a hard binding, allowing them > to migrate if required. It would be interesting to measure how > effective that soft affinity is in practice under various loads -- > presumably the goal would be for the softclock thread to migrate if a > higher (lower) priority thread is hogging the CPU. So why are there NCPU softclock threads if the binding isn't important?Received on Mon Oct 19 2009 - 13:15:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:57 UTC