>>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 17:15:53 -0700 (PDT), Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> said:
Christoph> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, David Mosberger wrote:
>> That's definitely the case. See my earlier post on this topic:
>> http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/linux-ia64/0409/11012.html
>> Unfortunately, nobody reported any results for larger machines
>> and/or more interesting workloads, so the patch is in limbo at
>> this time. Clearly, if the CPU that's clearing the page is
>> likely to use that same page soon after, it'd be useful to use
>> temporal stores.
Christoph> Here are some numbers using lmbench of temporal writes
Christoph> vs. non temporal writes on ia64 (8p machine but lmbench
Christoph> run only for one load). There seems to be some benefit
Christoph> for fork/exec but overall this does not seem to be a
Christoph> clear win. I suspect that the distinction between
Christoph> temporal vs. nontemporal writes is be more beneficial on
Christoph> machines with smaller pagesizes since the likelyhood that
Christoph> most cachelines of a page are used soon is increased and
Christoph> therefore hot zeroing is more beneficial.
What LMbench test other than fork/exec would you have expected to be
affected by this? LMbench is not a good benchmark for this (remember:
it's a _micro_ benchmark).
--david
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
