[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070420193856.GC2986@holomorphy.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:38:56 -0700
From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, caglar@...dus.org.tr,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, v3
Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:24:17PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>>> False sharing for a per cpu data structure? Are we updating that
>>> structure from other processors?
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Primarily in the load balancer, but also in wakeups.
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:33:13PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> That is fairly rare I think. What other variables that are also writtten
> frequently would cause false sharing?
I wrote that backward, sorry. Cross-CPU wakeups' frequency depend
heavily on the workload. Probably the only other case I can think of
is io_schedule() but that's not really significant.
I'm not really convinced it's all that worthwhile of an optimization,
essentially for the same reasons as you, but presumably there's a
benchmark result somewhere that says it matters. I've just not seen it.
-- wli
-
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