| To: | "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [jsun@mvista.com: Re: [RFC] FPU context switch] |
| From: | Jun Sun <jsun@mvista.com> |
| Date: | Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:14:34 -0700 |
| Cc: | linux-mips@linux-mips.org, jsun@mvista.com |
| In-reply-to: | <01b801c25ea7$ce074ed0$10eca8c0@grendel>; from kevink@mips.com on Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 02:10:17AM +0200 |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <20020917160425.O17321@mvista.com> <01b801c25ea7$ce074ed0$10eca8c0@grendel> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 02:10:17AM +0200, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: > Are you able to test this stuff on a proper SMP > system, by the way? The efficiency of the code > that manipulates interprocessor control variables > can reasonably be expected to drop off a bit > in a system with MP cache invalidations blasting > left and right. > Yes. I understand this effect. Solution 1), 2) and 3) don't really suffer from this problem because variables tested & manipulated are local - unless the process migrates which is a different problem. Jun |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [jsun@mvista.com: Re: [RFC] FPU context switch], Kevin D. Kissell |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: bug with 512MB of RAM?, Matthew Dharm |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [jsun@mvista.com: Re: [RFC] FPU context switch], Kevin D. Kissell |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [jsun@mvista.com: Re: [RFC] FPU context switch], Kevin D. Kissell |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |