Eric Dumazet wrote:
quoted text
> On Tuesday 13 March 2007 12:12, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
>>I guess googlemalloc (tcmalloc?) isn't suitable for a general purpose
>>glibc allocator. But I wonder if there are other improvements that glibc
>>can do here?
> 
> 
> I cooked a patch some time ago to speedup threaded apps and got no feedback.

Well that doesn't help in this case. I tested and the mmap_sem contention
is not an issue.

quoted text
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/9/26
> 
> Maybe we have to wait for 32 core cpu before thinking of cache line 
> bouncings...

The idea is a good one, and I was half way through implementing similar
myself at one point (some java apps hit this badly).

It is just horribly sad that futexes are supposed to implement a
_scalable_ thread synchronisation mechanism, whilst fundamentally
relying on an mm-wide lock to operate.

I don't like your interface, but then again, the futex interface isn't
exactly pretty anyway.

You should resubmit the patch, and get the glibc guys to use it.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/