[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 18:49:28 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>,
"Shai Fultheim (Shai@...lex86.org)" <shai@...lex86.org>,
pravin b shelar <pravin.shelar@...softinc.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [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.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists