From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Andreas Mohr <andi@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>,
John Richard Moser <nigelenki@comcast.net>,
Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Can context switches be faster?
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:30:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1160785812.25218.99.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061013233238.GA6038@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de>
Ar Sad, 2006-10-14 am 01:32 +0200, ysgrifennodd Andreas Mohr:
> OK, so since we've now amply worked out in this thread that TLB/cache flushing
> is a real problem for context switching management, would it be possible to
> smartly reorder processes on the runqueue (probably works best with many active
> processes with the same/similar priority on the runqueue!) to minimize
> TLB flushing needs due to less mm context differences of adjacently scheduled
> processes?
We already do. The newer x86 processors also have TLB tagging so they
can (if you find one without errata!) avoid the actual flush and instead
track the tag.
Alan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-10-14 0:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-10-12 15:44 Can context switches be faster? John Richard Moser
2006-10-12 15:53 ` John Richard Moser
2006-10-12 17:19 ` Russell King
2006-10-12 18:25 ` John Richard Moser
2006-10-12 18:37 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-10-12 18:56 ` John Richard Moser
2006-10-12 19:02 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-10-13 11:05 ` James Courtier-Dutton
2006-10-13 14:51 ` Chase Venters
2006-10-12 18:20 ` Phillip Susi
2006-10-12 18:29 ` John Richard Moser
2006-10-13 2:53 ` Andrew James Wade
2006-10-13 5:29 ` John Richard Moser
2006-10-13 16:56 ` Andrew James Wade
2006-10-13 17:24 ` John Richard Moser
2006-10-12 19:57 ` Chris Friesen
2006-10-12 20:23 ` John Richard Moser
2006-10-12 20:29 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-10-12 20:36 ` John Richard Moser
2006-10-12 20:35 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-10-13 23:32 ` Andreas Mohr
2006-10-13 23:47 ` David Lang
2006-10-14 0:14 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-10-14 0:30 ` Alan Cox [this message]
2006-10-14 0:14 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
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=1160785812.25218.99.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=andi@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de \
--cc=cfriesen@nortel.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nigelenki@comcast.net \
/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