[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44D940CA.9040608@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 11:56:26 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
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
Eric Dumazet wrote:
>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.
>
Yes, but I'm saying we already have a hash table. The hash table.
I'm *not* saying you *don't* also want a private directive from userspace.
--
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@...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