[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001080950120.7821@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 09:52:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"hugh.dickins" <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] mm: handle_speculative_fault()
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> Can we at least consider a typical standard business server, dual quad
> core hyperthreaded with 16 "cpus"? Cacheline contention will increase
> significantly there.
I bet it won't be a problem. It's when things go cross-socket that they
suck. So 16 cpu's across two sockets I wouldn't worry about.
> > Because let's face it - if your workload does several million page faults
> > per second, you're just doing something fundamentally _wrong_.
>
> You may just want to get your app running and its trying to initialize
> its memory in parallel on all threads. Nothing wrong with that.
Umm. That's going to be limited by the memset/memcpy, not the rwlock, I
bet.
The benchmark in question literally did a single byte write to each page
in order to show just the kernel component. That really isn't realistic
for any real load.
Linus
--
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