[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:0.019 / U:30.812 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site