On Fri, Sep 7, 2018, 4:34 AM Michel Dänzer <mic...@daenzer.net> wrote:
> On 2018-09-06 10:56 p.m., Axel Davy wrote: > > Yeah by pinning to cores, I meant to group of cores. > > > > I think a reasonable policy would be for the kernel to put all threads > > of a given process on the same L3 > > as long as the number of threads is lower than the L3 group size. > > When there is more threads I guess it'd need heuristics to pick which > > threads to put together. > > Maybe what's needed is a way for userspace to tell the kernel which > threads need to be close to each other in CPU topology. > > > > I fear if we begin to do the work manually, there won't be interest to > > do that in the kernel, > > and thus all applications will need to include such core pinning code to > > have good performance when > > multithreaded. > > I'm also a bit worried that this solution could result in multiple > processes contending for the same set of CPU cores, while other cores > might be underused, which could result in worse overall system performance. > Any suggestion how to choose the ccx such that processes end up on a different one? I don't think the performance can be worse than it is right now. Marek > > -- > Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com > Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer >
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
