Messages in this thread | | | From | Manfred Spraul <> | Subject | Re: andrea buffer code (2.2.9-C.gz) | Date | Fri, 21 May 1999 13:50:57 +0200 (CST) |
| |
Andrea wrote: > >number of spinlocks and choose which to use with some reductive function? > I think that if you want to SMP scale better it worth to > pay _only_ with memory wastage and _not_ with wasted CPU cycles. This is not always true: as Ingo pointed out, more memory means more cache misses, and that costs CPU cycles as well. The sometimes the reductive function could be as simple as (x&0xFF).
The advantage of a reductive function is that - if you have a suitable parameter - you can achieve parallel execution even without a memory structure (e.g. cache lookup's: instead of one fully associated cache with one lock you implement an array of 4(16,...)-way set associate caches with one lock for each cache)
> My latest code is placed here. masp0008 feel free to give it a review.
I've downloaded it yesterday, but I don't know when I'll have enough time for a review.
-- Manfred
- 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/
| |