On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 11:33:22AM -0800, David Mosberger wrote:
> It certainly does for on ia64-compliant system. Check section 9.3
> "Multi-threaded Code" in the "Itanium Software Conventions and Runtime
> Architecture manual".
I don't have that doc handy, but I'll trust your judgement...
> Now, with NUMA platforms, where the chipsets/switch may re-order
> accesses, the performance hit will be much bigger, so the old scheme
> may not be sufficient.
Right. I still have to do some performance measurements, but I
suspect that as the system size goes up, we'll see the I/O ordering
penalty increase. It'll probably get noticable at around 64p.
> I'm no NUMA expert, but my guess is that nobody will want to go
> through all the existing drivers to change them to use mmiob(). For
> new drivers, it might be OK.
The source level impact should actually be pretty small. An mmiob()
prior to the spin_unlock in a critical section that does I/O usually
suffices. Maybe it would be a good idea to have io_spin_lock and
io_spin_unlock for this purpose?
Thanks,
Jesse
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:21 EST