![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 11:57, Andi Kleen wrote: > Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org> writes: > > Current futex hash scheme is not the best for NUMA. The futex hash > > table is an array of struct futex_hash_bucket, which is just a spinlock > > and a list_head -- this means multiple spinlocks on the same cacheline > > and on NUMA machines, on the same internode cacheline. If futexes of two > > unrelated threads running on two different nodes happen to hash onto > > adjacent hash buckets, or buckets on the same internode cacheline, then > > we have the internode cacheline bouncing between nodes. > > When I did some testing with a (arguably far too lock intensive) benchmark > on a bigger box I got most bouncing cycles not in the futex locks itself, > but in the down_read on the mm semaphore. This is true, even with a normal application (not a biased benchmark) and using oprofile. mmap_sem is the killer. We may have special case for PRIVATE futexes (they dont need to be chained in a global table, but a process private table) POSIX thread api already can let the application tell glibc/kernel a mutex/futex ahe a process scope. For this private futexes, I think we would not need to down_read(mmap_sem) at all. (only a/some lock/s protecting the process private table) Eric - 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 12:13 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||