![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||