Ingo Molnar a écrit :
* Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
what do you mean by that - which is this same resource?
From what has been said here before, all futexes are stored in the
same list or hash table or whatever it was. I want to see how that
code behaves if many separate proces
* Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > what do you mean by that - which is this same resource?
>
> From what has been said here before, all futexes are stored in the
> same list or hash table or whatever it was. I want to see how that
> code behaves if many separate processes concurr
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> what do you mean by that - which is this same resource?
From what has been said here before, all futexes are stored in the same
list or hash table or whatever it was. I want to see how that code
behaves if many separate processes concurrently use futexes.
--
➧ Ulrich Dreppe
* Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pierre Peiffer wrote:
> > I've run this bench 1000 times with pipe and 800 groups.
> > Here are the results:
>
> This is not what I'm mostly concerned about. The patches create a
> bottleneck since _all_ processes use the same resource. [...]
what
Pierre Peiffer wrote:
> I've run this bench 1000 times with pipe and 800 groups.
> Here are the results:
This is not what I'm mostly concerned about. The patches create a
bottleneck since _all_ processes use the same resource. Plus, this code
has to be run on a machine with multiple processors t
* Pierre Peiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The modified hackbench is available here:
>
> http://www.bullopensource.org/posix/pi-futex/hackbench_pth.c
cool!
> I've run this bench 1000 times with pipe and 800 groups.
> Here are the results:
>
> Test1 - with simple list (i.e. without any fute
Hi,
Ingo Molnar a écrit :
yeah. As an alternative, it might be a good idea to pthread-ify
hackbench.c - that should replicate the Volano workload pretty
accurately. I've attached hackbench.c. (it's process based right now, so
it wont trigger contended futex ops)
Ok, thanks. I've adapted your
* Pierre Peiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...] Any measure will be difficult to do with only FUTEX_WAIT/WAKE.
that's not a problem - just do such a measurement and show that it does
/not/ impact performance measurably. That's what we want to know...
> (*) I'll try the volano bench, if I h
Andrew Morton a écrit :
> OK. Unfortunately patches 2-4 don't apply without #1 present and the fix
> is not immediately obvious, so we'll need a respin+retest, please.
Ok, I'll provide updated patches for -mm ASAP.
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:47:28 -0800
Ulrich Drepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew,
if the patches allow this, I'd like to see parts 2, 3, and 4 to be in
-mm ASAP. Especially the 64-bit variants are urgently needed. Just
hold off adding the plist use, I am still not convinced that
unconditional use is a good thing, especially with one single global list.
--
➧ Ulrich D
Hi,
Today, there are several functionalities or improvements about futexes included
in -rt kernel tree, which, I think, it make sense to have in mainline.
Among them, there are:
* futex use prio list : allow threads to be woken in priority order
instead of
FIFO order.
* futex_wai
11 matches
Mail list logo
