From: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Cc: Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: RCU scaling on large systems
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 11:17:06 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040507181706.GR1397@holomorphy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040507175358.GD3829@dualathlon.random>
On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 02:17:04PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Would something like this help cacheline contention? This uses the
>> per_cpu data areas to hold per-cpu booleans for needing switches.
>> Untested/uncompiled.
>> The global lock is unfortunately still there.
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 07:53:58PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> I'm afraid this cannot help, the rcu_cpu_mask and the mutex are in the same
> cacheline, so it's not just about the global lock being still there,
> it's about the cpumask being in the same cacheline with the global lock.
Hmm. I can't quite make out what you're trying to say. If it were about
the cpumask sharing the cacheline with the global lock, then the patch
would help, but you say it should not. I don't care much about the
conclusion, since I wrote the patch to express the notion that the
concentration of accesses to the cpumask's shared cacheline(s) could be
dispersed by using integers in per_cpu data to represent the individual
bits of the cpumask if that were the problem, and by trying something
similar to the posted patch, it could be determined if that were so,
but later heard back that it'd been determined by other means that it
was the lock itself...
-- wli
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-07 20:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-05-01 12:08 RCU scaling on large systems Jack Steiner
2004-05-01 21:17 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-05-01 22:35 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-05-02 1:38 ` Jack Steiner
2004-05-07 17:53 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-05-07 18:17 ` William Lee Irwin III [this message]
2004-05-07 19:59 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-05-07 20:49 ` Jack Steiner
2004-05-02 18:28 ` Paul E. McKenney
2004-05-03 16:39 ` Jesse Barnes
2004-05-03 20:04 ` Paul E. McKenney
2004-05-03 18:40 ` Jack Steiner
2004-05-07 20:50 ` Paul E. McKenney
2004-05-07 22:06 ` Jack Steiner
2004-05-07 23:32 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-08 4:55 ` Jack Steiner
2004-05-17 21:18 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-05-17 21:42 ` Andrew Morton
2004-05-17 23:50 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-05-18 13:33 ` Jack Steiner
2004-05-18 23:13 ` Matt Mackall
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-05-20 11:36 Manfred Spraul
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=20040507181706.GR1397@holomorphy.com \
--to=wli@holomorphy.com \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=steiner@sgi.com \
/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