On 2016-10-17 18:09:49 [-0700], Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2016, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
> > It popped up in perf testing that the worker consumes some amount of
> > CPU. It boils down to the increment of `ops` which causes cache line
> > bouncing between the individual thr
On Sun, 16 Oct 2016, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
It popped up in perf testing that the worker consumes some amount of
CPU. It boils down to the increment of `ops` which causes cache line
bouncing between the individual threads.
Are you referring to this?
â for (i = 0; i <
It popped up in perf testing that the worker consumes some amount of
CPU. It boils down to the increment of `ops` which causes cache line
bouncing between the individual threads.
The patch aligns the struct by 256 bytes to ensure that not a cache line
is shared among CPUs. 128 byte is the x86 worst
3 matches
Mail list logo
