Ivan Voras wrote: > 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? Nevermind, I got it - they are not used only for "clock".Received on Mon Oct 19 2009 - 13:20:06 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:57 UTC