On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Mike Galbraith <efa...@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> Yes. Cross wiring traverse _start_ points should eliminate (well, damp)
> bounce as well without killing the 1:N latency/preempt benefits of large
> L3 packages.
Yes, a "test buddy first, then check the other cores in the package"
hybrid approach might be reasonable.
Of course, that's effectively what the whole "prev_cpu" thing is kind
of supposed to also do, isn't it? Because it's even lovelier if you
can avoid bouncing around by trying to hit a previous CPU that might
just have some of the old data in the caches still.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
