On Sat, Oct 05, 2024 at 09:56:24AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 at 09:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 10:39:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > So I think the real issue is that "active_mm" is an old hack from a
> > > bygone era when we didn't hav
On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 at 09:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 10:39:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So I think the real issue is that "active_mm" is an old hack from a
> > bygone era when we didn't have the (much more involved) full TLB
> > tracking.
>
> I still seem to have
On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 10:39:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I think the real issue is that "active_mm" is an old hack from a
> bygone era when we didn't have the (much more involved) full TLB
> tracking.
I still seem to have these patches that neither Andy nor I ever managed
to find time
On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 at 18:04, Mathieu Desnoyers
wrote:
>
> Hazard pointers appear to be a good fit for replacing refcount based lazy
> active mm tracking.
If the mm refcount is this expensive, I suspect we really shouldn't
use it at all.
The thing is, we don't _need_ to use the mm refcount - the
On 10/2/24 10:02 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> On 2024-10-02 17:58, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 10/2/24 9:53 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>> On 2024-10-02 17:36, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
On 2024-10-02 17:33, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 11:26:27AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers
On 2024-10-02 17:58, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 10/2/24 9:53 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
On 2024-10-02 17:36, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
On 2024-10-02 17:33, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 11:26:27AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
On 2024-10-02 16:09, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue,
On 10/2/24 9:53 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> On 2024-10-02 17:36, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> On 2024-10-02 17:33, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 11:26:27AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
On 2024-10-02 16:09, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 09:02:01P
On 2024-10-02 17:33, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 11:26:27AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
On 2024-10-02 16:09, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 09:02:01PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
Hazard pointers appear to be a good fit for replacing refcount based laz
On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 11:26:27AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> On 2024-10-02 16:09, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 09:02:01PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> > > Hazard pointers appear to be a good fit for replacing refcount based lazy
> > > active mm tracking.
> > >
>
On 2024-10-02 16:09, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 09:02:01PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
Hazard pointers appear to be a good fit for replacing refcount based lazy
active mm tracking.
Highlight:
will-it-scale context_switch1_threads
nr threads (-t) speedup
24
On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 09:02:01PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Hazard pointers appear to be a good fit for replacing refcount based lazy
> active mm tracking.
>
> Highlight:
>
> will-it-scale context_switch1_threads
>
> nr threads (-t) speedup
> 24+3%
> 48
Hazard pointers appear to be a good fit for replacing refcount based lazy
active mm tracking.
Highlight:
will-it-scale context_switch1_threads
nr threads (-t) speedup
24+3%
48 +12%
96 +21%
192 +28%
I'm curious to see w
12 matches
Mail list logo
