Re: Bug#510624: ITP: pigz -- Parallel Implementation of GZip
On 01/04/09 17:20, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le dimanche 04 janvier 2009 à 23:45 +0100, Samuel Thibault a écrit :
It’s already the case in HPC environments, and CPU pinning is certainly
going to be used more widely as the number of cores increases.
And that's a shame. Linux shouldn't be so happy to move tasks between
Actually it doesn’t. Since CPU affinity was included (IIRC in 2.6.16) it
is much less prone to move tasks, and the performance impact of not
using CPU pinning is small.
Still, it is better to use CPU pinning since you often want finer
control than that, and that’s especially true in multi-user environments
where resources can be sub-host.
Wouldn't it be better to bind a process to a "chip", rather than a
"core", so that you don't run into cases where, after many processes
terminate, you are left with most of the busy processes pinned to a
single busy core while the others are mostly unused?
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
I like my women like I like my coffee - purchased at above-market
rates from eco-friendly organic farming cooperatives in Latin America.