lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: andrea buffer code (2.2.9-C.gz)
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Manfred Spraul wrote:

>I noticed that you added a new spinlock to every memmap_t,
>i.e. 4 bytes for every 4096 bytes system memory.

Yes.

>Is that really required? Have you made any profiling?

If you want to SMP scale well it's needed (I don't think on a two-way SMP
is a big issue having a per-memmap spinlock instead of a global spinlock
but on more powerful machines it can help I think).

The point is that there we don't need a global spinlock but there we can
scale far more finegriend on per-page basis. If our approch is to scale
well as possible in SMP without bother to waste some more kbyte of memory
the spinlock it's required. You know: to scale better you need to waste
more memory :-).

An UP compile done with a not-buggy compiler won't waste a bit of memory
though.

>The spinlock is only acquired for a few lines,
>perhaps one global spinlock would save memory.

Yes but I am not worried, and being more finegrined in SMP is more fun :-).

Andrea Arcangeli


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans