On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 09:43 +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > I don't see the connection between TLB misses and hiperdispatch. Could > you elaborate please?
I (perhaps naively) believed that an operating system that had the ability to request PR/SM only dispatch it on a CPU that was cache (and TLB) "hot" might actually generate some benefit. The z/OS developers seemed to think so. Are you suggesting that running as a guest under z/VM on PR/SM arbitrated hardware would *not* benefit from this ?. How about being dispatched on an entirely different book (node from a NUMA perspective) if the guest made the effort to ensure dispatch was "close" to the last CPU used. I would think that having a hipervisor in between that lies to its guest(s) can hardly be beneficial. Maybe I'm just being too simplistic. Shane ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
