>>>>> 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/
