lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Fw: potential /dev/urandom scalability improvement
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 06:00:14PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> David Mosberger <davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> >
> > The
> > patch below is updated to go on top of your patch and gives about the
> > same performance as I reported yesterday. For now, I defined an
> > inline prefetch_range(). If and when all architectures get updated to
> > define this directly, we can simply remove prefetch_range() from the
> > driver.
>
> We may as well stick prefetch_range() in prefetch.h.
>
> And Matt's patch series is not a thing I want to take on board at present,
> so let's stick with the straight scalability patch for now.

Sigh, I'll trim it back to some bits I think are critical.

> I moved the prefetch_range() call to outside the spinlock. Does that make
> sense?

I don't think that's actually a win. If there's contention, threads
racing to the lock will grab the same cache lines and all but one
thread's cache will end up invalidated by the time the lock is
released.

--
Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : Linux development and consulting
-
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 14:01    [W:0.476 / U:0.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site