On 17/08/16(Wed) 22:19, David Gwynne wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:13:04PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 08:27:19PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 02:43:16PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > > > ive been tinker
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 09:13:04PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 08:27:19PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 02:43:16PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > > ive been tinkering with per cpu memory in the kernel.
> >
> > mpi@ wa
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 08:27:19PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 02:43:16PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > ive been tinkering with per cpu memory in the kernel.
>
> mpi@ wanted to see another example of moving something to per cpu counters
> and challenge
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 02:43:16PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> ive been tinkering with per cpu memory in the kernel.
mpi@ wanted to see another example of moving something to per cpu counters and
challenged me to do tcpstat.
the diff below does that, but with a couple of warts.
firstly,
> From: David Gwynne
> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 16:26:45 +1000
>
> > On 13 Aug 2016, at 5:48 AM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >
> >> From: Martin Pieuchot
> >> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 20:44:04 +0200
> >>
> >> On 08/11/16 06:43, David Gwynne w
> On 13 Aug 2016, at 5:48 AM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>
>> From: Martin Pieuchot
>> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 20:44:04 +0200
>>
>> On 08/11/16 06:43, David Gwynne wrote:
>>> ive been tinkering with per cpu memory in the kernel
>>> [...]
>>
>
> From: Martin Pieuchot
> Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 20:44:04 +0200
>
> On 08/11/16 06:43, David Gwynne wrote:
> > ive been tinkering with per cpu memory in the kernel
> > [...]
>
> I'd like to have more people comment on this because we need an MP-safe
> way t
On 08/11/16 06:43, David Gwynne wrote:
> ive been tinkering with per cpu memory in the kernel
> [...]
I'd like to have more people comment on this because we need an MP-safe
way to handle counters in the network stack.
> im still debating whether the API should do protection agains
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 02:43:16PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> ive been tinkering with per cpu memory in the kernel.
i think vi threw up a little bit on the diff i sent out, so this
should work.
it should also work on !MULTIPROCESSOR kernels now. some of that
is fixes to the percpu.h bits,
ive been tinkering with per cpu memory in the kernel.
per cpu memory is pretty much what it sounds like. you allocate
memory for each cpu to operate on independently of the rest of the
system, therefore reducing the contention between cpus on cache
lines.
this introduces wrappers around the
10 matches
Mail list logo
