From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262881AbTDMCzy (for ); Sat, 12 Apr 2003 22:55:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263113AbTDMCzx (for ); Sat, 12 Apr 2003 22:55:53 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-01.tampabay.rr.com ([65.32.1.43]:64392 "EHLO ms-smtp-01.tampabay.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262881AbTDMCzx (for ); Sat, 12 Apr 2003 22:55:53 -0400 Message-ID: <000701c3016a$b9d76c90$6801a8c0@epimetheus> From: "Timothy Miller" To: Subject: Quick question about hyper-threading Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 23:13:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On a hyper-threaded CPU, it seems to me that there could be a lot of cache-thrashing if the two processes running are completely unrelated. On the other hand, if one process has two threads, then they would benefit (or hurt less) from the cache-sharing, because they share the same memory space. Does the HT-aware scheduler attempt to take this into account by scheduling two related threads to run simultaneously on the same CPU as often as possible (unless you're in a multi-processor system and another CPU would otherwise be idle)?