![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Eric Dumazet wrote: > We certainly can. But if you insist of using mmap sem at all, then we have a > problem. > > rbtree would not reduce cacheline bouncing, so : > > We could use a hashtable (allocated on demand) of size N, N depending on > NR_CPUS for example. each chain protected by a private spinlock. If N is well > chosen, we might reduce lock cacheline bouncing. (different threads fighting > on different private futexes would have a good chance to get different > cachelines in this hashtable) See other mail. We already have a hash table ;) -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 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: 2006-08-08 18:37 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||