lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: page fault scalability patch V11 [0/7]: overview
    William Lee Irwin III wrote:
    >> Irrelevant. Unshare cachelines with hot mm-global ones, and the
    >> "problem" goes away.

    On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 02:14:33PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > That's the idea.


    William Lee Irwin III wrote:
    >> This stuff is going on and on about some purist "no atomic operations
    >> anywhere" weirdness even though killing the last atomic operation
    >> creates problems and doesn't improve performance.

    On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 02:14:33PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > Huh? How is not wanting to impact single threaded performance being
    > "purist weirdness"? Practical, I'd call it.

    Empirically demonstrate the impact on single-threaded performance.


    On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 01:40:40PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
    >> Why the Hell would you bother giving each cpu a separate cacheline?
    >> The odds of bouncing significantly merely amongst the counters are not
    >> particularly high.

    On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 02:14:33PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > Hmm yeah I guess wouldn't put them all on different cachelines.
    > As you can see though, Christoph ran into a wall at 8 CPUs, so
    > having them densly packed still might not be enough.

    Please be more specific about the result, and cite the Message-Id.


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

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:4.029 / U:0.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site