From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFD] Separating struct task and the kernel stacks
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:13:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050610171341.GG24611@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9712.1118384111@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com>
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:11:42AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> Using the slab allocator generates a certain amount of overhead during
> process creation. I believe the page allocator would be faster. Also there
> needs to be no separate allocation of memory for the stack.
While speed of process creation is certainly an important benchmark,
speed of scheduling is more important. I was under the impression that
the reason x86 moved the task_struct from the bottom of the stack to
its own slab was that the scheduler had bad cache effects due to all
task_structs being on the same 4k boundary. Obviously, ia64 has slightly
different caches from x86, but I just wanted to point out that it isn't
necessarily all bad to move the task_struct off the stack.
--
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon
the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse
to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince
himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep
he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." -- Mark Twain
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-06-10 17:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-06-10 6:15 [RFD] Separating struct task and the kernel stacks Keith Owens
2005-06-10 15:11 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-06-10 16:54 ` David Mosberger
2005-06-10 17:03 ` David Mosberger
2005-06-10 17:13 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2005-06-10 17:20 ` David Mosberger
2005-06-11 4:08 ` Keith Owens
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050610171341.GG24611@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk \
--to=matthew@wil.cx \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox