From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262423AbTDMWGI (for ); Sun, 13 Apr 2003 18:06:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262579AbTDMWGI (for ); Sun, 13 Apr 2003 18:06:08 -0400 Received: from siaab1ab.compuserve.com ([149.174.40.2]:5057 "EHLO siaab1ab.compuserve.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262423AbTDMWGG (for ); Sun, 13 Apr 2003 18:06:06 -0400 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 18:13:24 -0400 From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Quick question about hyper-threading To: Robert Love Cc: linux-kernel Message-ID: <200304131817_MC3-1-3444-7E30@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Rovert Love wrote: > No, the current scheduler (HT or stock 2.5) does not do > this. > > Your theories are correct. It would be interesting to try > this and see. > > It is nontrivial to do the ->mm checks in the scheduler though - > certainly they cannot be done easily (if at all) in constant-time > (i.e., it won't be O(1)). Is the scheduler even the right place to do that? I was thinking maybe the task_struct could use a cpus_desired field -- then other parts of the system could give the scheduler hints about which CPU to schedule a task on. -- Chuck