On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 09:21 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Sun, 2005-08-14 at 23:24 +0200, Ian Kumlien wrote: > > Hi, all > > > > I might be missunderstanding things but... > > > > First of all, machines with long pipelines will suffer from cache misses > > (p4 in this case). > > > > Depending on the size copied, (i don't know how large they are so..) > > can't one run out of cachelines and/or evict more useful cache data? > > CPU caches are really big nowadays Yes but (is copy to/from user size limited?) whats the cahes size compared to the copy operation preformed compared to lost useful cachelines =) > > Ie, if it's cached from begining to end, we generally only need 'some > > of' the begining, the cpu's prefetch should manage the rest. > > cpu prefetch isn't going to be fast enough. It helps some, but in the > end the cpu prefetch also has to wait for the ram, it doesn't make the > ram faster or free, it just takes a jumpstart on getting to it. Yeah i know, but i was thinking more of a compromize, then it might be better... > > I might, as i said, not know all about things like this and i also > > suffer from a fever but i still find Hiro's data interesting. > > It is. It's good proof that you can make a big gain already by > converting a few key places to his excellent code. And neither me nor > Christoph are suggesting to ditch his effort! Instead we suggest that > what he is doing is useful for some cases and harmful for others, and > that it is quite easy to identify those cases and separate them from > eachother, and that thus as a result it is more optimal to have 2 apis, > one for each of the cases. Thats good to know, since i have wondered for a while why block io seems so oddly slow... I just thought that there might be some good compromize between the two that would make it automatic. Oh well, guess i'm back to coughing and waiting for patches to be implemented =) -- Ian Kumlien <pomac () vapor ! com> -- http://pomac.netswarm.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- References:
- Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cache pollution aware __copy_from_user_ll()
- From: Ian Kumlien <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cache pollution aware __copy_from_user_ll()
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cache pollution aware __copy_from_user_ll()
- Prev by Date: Re: uart_port structure in serial8250_port[i] doesn't have the port_type values
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] [TRIVIAL] relayfs: remove comment on overwrite mode
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cache pollution aware __copy_from_user_ll()
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] cache pollution aware __copy_from_user_ll()
- Index(es):