Re: Bug#510624: ITP: pigz -- Parallel Implementation of GZip

[Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>]

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
> > CPUs...
>
> 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.