Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:43:49 -0800 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |