From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 20:19:26 -0800 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: The performance and behaviour of the anti-fragmentation related patches Message-ID: <20070303041926.GE23573@holomorphy.com> References: <20070302100619.cec06d6a.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <45E86BA0.50508@redhat.com> <20070302211207.GJ10643@holomorphy.com> <45E894D7.2040309@redhat.com> <20070302135243.ada51084.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <45E89F1E.8020803@redhat.com> <20070302142256.0127f5ac.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070303003319.GB23573@holomorphy.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Bill Irwin , Mel Gorman , npiggin@suse.de, mingo@elte.hu, jschopp@austin.ibm.com, arjan@infradead.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mbligh@mbligh.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> AIUI that phenomenon is universal to NUMA. Maybe it's time we >> reexamined our locking algorithms in the light of fairness >> considerations. On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 07:15:38PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > This is a phenomenon that is usually addressed at the cache logic level. > Its a hardware maturation issue. A certain package should not be allowed > to hold onto a cacheline forever and other packages must have a mininum > time when they can operate on that cacheline. I think when I last asked about that I was told "cache directories are too expensive" or something on that order, if I'm not botching this, too. In any event, the above shows a gross inaccuracy in my statement. -- wli -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org