lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: SMP performance degradation with sysbench
Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 March 2007 12:12, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>I guess googlemalloc (tcmalloc?) isn't suitable for a general purpose
>>glibc allocator. But I wonder if there are other improvements that glibc
>>can do here?
>
>
> I cooked a patch some time ago to speedup threaded apps and got no feedback.

Well that doesn't help in this case. I tested and the mmap_sem contention
is not an issue.

> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/9/26
>
> Maybe we have to wait for 32 core cpu before thinking of cache line
> bouncings...

The idea is a good one, and I was half way through implementing similar
myself at one point (some java apps hit this badly).

It is just horribly sad that futexes are supposed to implement a
_scalable_ thread synchronisation mechanism, whilst fundamentally
relying on an mm-wide lock to operate.

I don't like your interface, but then again, the futex interface isn't
exactly pretty anyway.

You should resubmit the patch, and get the glibc guys to use it.

--
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: 2007-03-13 12:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans