Re: kernel stack size

[Steven Rostedt]

On Sun, 2005-04-03 at 09:10 +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:

> Yes - sem or spin locks are quicker as long as no cache line transfers 
> are necessary. If the semaphore is accessed by multiple cpus, then 
> kmalloc would be faster: slab tries hard to avoid taking global locks. 
> I'm not speaking about contention, just the cache line ping pong for 
> acquiring a free semaphore.

Without contention, is there still a problem with cache line ping pong
of acquiring a free semaphore?

I mean, say only one task is using a given semaphore. Is there still
going to be cache line transfers for acquiring it? Even if the task in
question stays on a CPU. Is the "LOCK" on an instruction that expensive
even if the other CPUs haven't accessed that location of memory.

Sorry for my ignorance, I don't know all the interworkings of the Cache
on SMP systems.  Is there any good references on the Internet? I
definitely want to know so that my coding practices for SMP improve. 

Thanks,

-- Steve


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/