On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 20:32 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > 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.
prev_cpu can be anywhere, so buddies sometimes need help getting back together when they've been disrupted, but yeah, in the general case it's local, so you want prev_cpu if it can be had. -Mike -- 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/
