Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> >>
> >>>Following change places each element of the futex_queues hashtable on a
> >>>different cacheline. Spinlocks of adjacent hash buckets lie on the same
> >>>cacheline otherwise.
> >>>
> >>
> >>It does not make sense to add swaths of unused memory into a hashtable for
> >>this purpose, does it?
> >
> >
> > It does if you essentially have a 4k cacheline (because you are doing NUMA
> > in software with multiple PCs....) and transferring control of that
> > cacheline is comparatively expensive.
> >
>
> Instead of 1MB hash with 256 entries in it covering 256 cachelines, you
> have a 1MB hash with 65536(ish) entries covering 256 cachelines.
>
Good (if accidental point). Kiran, if you're going to gobble a megabyte,
you might as well use all of it and make the hashtable larger, rather than
just leaving 99% of that memory unused...
-
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]