Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > No joy, I'm afraid.
>
> > Guess we should instrument it up and make sure that the hashing
> > and index thing is getting the right locality.
>
> Could it be that your quad needs to go to RAM to grab a cacheline
> that's exclusive on the other CPU while Daniel's machine can just
> shove cachelines from CPU to CPU ?
Could be, Rik. I don't know. It's a bit worrisome that we might
be dependent on subtleties like that.
> What I'm referring to is the fact that the pte_chain_locks in
> Daniel's patch are all packed into a few cachelines, instead of
> having each lock on its own cache line...
>
> This could explain the fact that the locking overhead plummeted
> on Daniel's box while it didn't change at all on your machine.
Oh it helped a bit. More in 2.4 than 2.5. Possibly I broke
Daniel's patch somehow. But even the improvement in 2.4
from Daniel's patch is disappointing.
-
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 : Wed Aug 07 2002 - 22:00:22 EST