Re: idle issues running sembench on 128 cpus

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 5 May 2011, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 01:29:49AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > That makes sense, but merging the timeouts race free will be a real
> > PITA.
> 
> For this case one could actually use a spinlock between the siblings.
> That shouldn't be a problem as long as it's not a global spinlock.

Care to give it a try ?

> > > Also if it's HPET you could actually use multiple independent HPET channels.
> > > I remember us discussing this a long time ago... Not sure if it's worth
> > > it, but it may be a small relief.
> > 
> > Multiple broadcast devices. That sounds still horrible :)
> 
> 
> It would cut contention in half or more at least. Not great,
> but sometimes you take everything you can get.

To a certain degree. If the code pain is larger than the benefit ...
 
> Here's a new patch without the raw. Boots on my Westmere.

> +	cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();

Hmm. quilt refresh perhaps ? I know that feeling :)

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/