[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 19:15:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@...r.sgi.com>
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Bill Irwin <bill.irwin@...cle.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
npiggin@...e.de, mingo@...e.hu, jschopp@...tin.ibm.com,
arjan@...radead.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
mbligh@...igh.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related
patches
On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 02:22:56PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Opterons seem to be particularly prone to lock starvation where a cacheline
> > gets captured in a single package for ever.
>
> AIUI that phenomenon is universal to NUMA. Maybe it's time we
> reexamined our locking algorithms in the light of fairness
> considerations.
This is a phenomenon that is usually addressed at the cache logic level.
Its a hardware maturation issue. A certain package should not be allowed
to hold onto a cacheline forever and other packages must have a mininum
time when they can operate on that cacheline.
-
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