1 Oct 2010 10:54
Re: Examining the VM splay tree effectiveness
Andre Oppermann <andre <at> freebsd.org>
2010-10-01 08:54:09 GMT
2010-10-01 08:54:09 GMT
On 30.09.2010 19:51, Ivan Voras wrote: > On 09/30/10 18:37, Andre Oppermann wrote: > >> Both the vmmap and page table make use of splay trees to manage the >> entries and to speed up lookups compared to long to traverse linked >> lists or more memory expensive hash tables. Some structures though >> do have an additional linked list to simplify ordered traversals. > > The property of splay tree requiring *writes* for nearly every read > really is a thorn in the eye for SMP. It seems to me that even if the > immediate benefits from converting to something else are not directly > observable, it will still be worth doing it. Fully agreed. > It's a shame that RCU is still a patent minefield :/ > > http://mirror.leaseweb.com/kernel/people/npiggin/patches/lockless/2.6.16-rc5/radix-intro.pdf I'm not convinced that RCU is the only scalable way of sharing a data structure across a possibly large number of CPU's. The term "lockless" is often used and frequently misunderstood. Having a lockess data structure *doesn't* mean that is either performant, scalable or both. It heavily depends on a number of additional factors. Many times "lockless" just replaces a simple lock/unlock cycle with a number of atomic operations on the data structure. This can easily backfire because an atomic operation just hides the computational complexity and also dirties the CPU's cache lines. Generally on cache coherent architectures(Continue reading)
RSS Feed