[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311281523250.30673@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 15:23:47 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Scott Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Tom Vaden <tom.vaden@...com>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 0/5] futex: Allow lockless empty check of hashbucket
plist in futex_wake()
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 11:44:38PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > How about both enlarging the table _and_ aligning the buckets? As you
> > know, increasing the size of the table also benefits (particularly in
> > larger systems) in having more spinlocks. So we reduce the amount of
> > collisions and alleviate contention on the hb->lock. Btw, do you have
> > any particular concerns about the larger hash table patch?
>
> My only concern was the amount of #ifdef.
>
> Wouldn't something like the below also work?
Definitely.
--
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