[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071001222449.GA11367@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 15:24:49 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, dipankar@...ibm.com,
josht@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tytso@...ibm.com, dvhltc@...ibm.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, bunk@...nel.org,
ego@...ibm.com, srostedt@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/9] RCU: Preemptible RCU
On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 03:09:16PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > That would indeed be one approach that CPU designers could take to
> > avoid being careless or sadistic. ;-)
>
> That'd be the easier (unique maybe) approach too for them, from an silicon
> complexity POV. Distinguishing between different CPUs stores once inside a
> shared store buffer, would require tagging them in some way. That'd defeat
> most of the pros of having a shared store buffer ;)
Tagging requires but one bit per entry. Depends on the workload -- if
lots of barriers, bursty stores and little sharing, tagging might win.
If lots of sharing, then your suggested approach might win.
Thanx, Paul
-
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