[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] NUMA futex hashing
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 18:34, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 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 ;)

Yes but still you want at FUTEX_WAIT time to tell the kernel the futex is
private to this process.

Giving the same info at FUTEX_WAKE time could avoid the kernel to make the
second pass (using only a private futex lookup), avoiding again the mmap_sem
touch in case no threads are waiting anymore on this futex.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-08 18:53    [W:0.060 / U:54.916 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site