[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701190952090.14617@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:54:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
cc: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: Possible ways of dealing with OOM conditions.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > Cache misses for small packet flow due to the fact, that the same data
> > is allocated and freed and accessed on different CPUs will become an
> > issue soon, not right now, since two-four core CPUs are not yet to be
> > very popular and price for the cache miss is not _that_ high.
>
> SGI does networking too, right?
Sslab deals with those issues the right way. We have per processor
queues that attempt to keep the cache hot state. A special shared queue
exists between neighboring processors to facilitate exchange of objects
between then.
-
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