On 11/14/06, Robin Garner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Whether this helps performance depends on the cache policy of the
>multiprocessor. I'm not sufficiently versed in cache architectures to
>say, but I would expect that machines with sufficiently weak memory
>models will make this cheap, thos
Salikh Zakirov wrote:
As we discussed before, the VTable marks approach [1] has a "false sharing"
problem
on a multiprocessor:
when one thread is writing to vtable mark, it is invalidating respective cache
line
in other processor caches. Meanwhile, since gcmaps, located near vtable marks,
are
On 11/14/06, Robin Garner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Salikh Zakirov wrote:
> As we discussed before, the VTable marks approach [1] has a "false
sharing" problem
> on a multiprocessor:
>
> when one thread is writing to vtable mark, it is invalidating respective
cache line
> in other processor cac
As we discussed before, the VTable marks approach [1] has a "false sharing"
problem
on a multiprocessor:
when one thread is writing to vtable mark, it is invalidating respective cache
line
in other processor caches. Meanwhile, since gcmaps, located near vtable marks,
are loaded frequently during
