"Kernel Hacking"/Developing on a HT CPU versus "physical" CPUs

[Petri Helenius]

mre2007 at cs.columbia.edu wrote:

>Dave:
>
>yes this makes sense! So, does the scheduler take this into consideration?
>
>  
>
The _ULE scheduler does, the _4BSD scheduler does not.

Pete

>-Marc
>
>  
>
>>Here is one example:
>>If you have dual HT processors, this looks like 4 CPUs to the O/S.
>>For performance reasons, the scheduler should not treat them equally.
>>If there are two threads to run, they should be put on different physical
>>processors (vs. two hyperthreads of the same processor).
>>
>>
>>David Dolson (ddolson at sandvine.com, www.sandvine.com)
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-freebsd-smp at freebsd.org
>>>[mailto:owner-freebsd-smp at freebsd.org]On Behalf Of
>>>mre2007 at cs.columbia.edu
>>>Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 10:48 AM
>>>To: freebsd-smp at freebsd.org
>>>Subject: "Kernel Hacking"/Developing on a HT CPU versus
>>>"physical" CPUs
>>>
>>>
>>>Hey, I was wondering if from a developing/"kernel hacking"
>>>standpoint, are
>>>hyperthreading and two "physical" CPUs any different? At what
>>>point do the
>>>differences have to be taken into consideration when working on the
>>>FreeBSD kernel/scheduler/etc? I'm looking to start contributing to the
>>>FreeBSD project and am trying to get some hardware set aside.
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>>-Marc
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>freebsd-smp at freebsd.org mailing list
>>>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-smp
>>>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-smp-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>_______________________________________________
>freebsd-smp at freebsd.org mailing list
>http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-smp
>To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-smp-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>  
>