![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Eric Dumazet wrote: >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. > Yes, but I'm saying we already have a hash table. The hash table. I'm *not* saying you *don't* also want a private directive from userspace. -- 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: 2006-08-09 03:59 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||