William Lee Irwin III wrote:
Irrelevant. Unshare cachelines with hot mm-global ones, and the
"problem" goes away.
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 02:14:33PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
That's the idea.
William Lee Irwin III wrote:
This stuff is going on and on about some purist "no atomic operations
anywhere" weirdness even though killing the last atomic operation
creates problems and doesn't improve performance.
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 02:14:33PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Huh? How is not wanting to impact single threaded performance being
"purist weirdness"? Practical, I'd call it.
Empirically demonstrate the impact on single-threaded performance.
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 01:40:40PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Why the Hell would you bother giving each cpu a separate cacheline?
The odds of bouncing significantly merely amongst the counters are not
particularly high.
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 02:14:33PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Hmm yeah I guess wouldn't put them all on different cachelines.
As you can see though, Christoph ran into a wall at 8 CPUs, so
having them densly packed still might not be enough.
Please be more specific about the result, and cite the Message-Id.