Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of

From: Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Date: Tue Nov 07 2000 - 08:52:44 EST

Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: Persistent module storage - modutils design"
Previous message: Keith Owens: "Re: Persistent module storage - modutils design"
In reply to: Andrew Morton: "Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of"
Next in thread: dean gaudet: "Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

> Anyway, version 2 below uses LIFO for the accept() wakeups. This
> appears to be a 5%-10% win for Apache. The browsing loop for
> exclusive tasks will now pull in cachelines 0 and 2, rather
> than the previous 0 and 1.

That makes it much worse for the newest cpus which use 64byte lines (Athlon
and PIV)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Alan Cox: "Re: Persistent module storage - modutils design"
Previous message: Keith Owens: "Re: Persistent module storage - modutils design"
In reply to: Andrew Morton: "Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of"
Next in thread: dean gaudet: "Re: [PATCH] Re: Negative scalability by removal of lock_kernel()?(Was:Strange performance behavior of 2.4.0-test9)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 21:00:22 EST