Re: [PATCH 2/3] FUTEX : introduce private hashtables

[Ulrich Drepper]

On 3/15/07, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There should be little contention on the memory in the global hash anyway,
> because we can roughly reduce contention as a factor of hash-size/cacheline-size.
>
> What we will have are cache misses on the global table... but we're going to
> get cache misses on those private tables as well.

I'm thinking about NUMA cases.  If you have private tables for a
process which is pinned to some cluster in a NUMA machine the table is
local to the node.  If you have a global table you cannot optimize
your application for such a situation because at least some of the
pages of the global table are remote.
-
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/