From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:54:57 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: pthread_create() slow for many threads; also time to revisit 64b context switch optimization? Message-ID: <20080815155457.GA5210@shareable.org> References: <20080813104445.GA24632@elte.hu> <20080813063533.444c650d@infradead.org> <48A2EE07.3040003@redhat.com> <20080813142529.GB21129@elte.hu> <48A2F157.7000303@redhat.com> <20080813151007.GA8780@elte.hu> <48A2FC17.9070302@redhat.com> <20080813154043.GA11886@elte.hu> <48A303EE.8070002@redhat.com> <20080813160218.GB18037@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080813160218.GB18037@elte.hu> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Ulrich Drepper , Arjan van de Ven , akpm@linux-foundation.org, hugh@veritas.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, briangrant@google.com, cgd@google.com, mbligh@google.com, Linus Torvalds , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" List-ID: Ingo Molnar wrote: > As unimplemented flags just get ignored by the kernel, if this flag goes > into v2.6.27 as-is and is ignored by the kernel (i.e. we just use a > plain old 64-bit [47-bit] allocation), then you could do the glibc > change straight away, correct? So then if people complain we can fix it > in the kernel purely. > > how about this then? > +#define MAP_64BIT_STACK 0x20000 /* give out 32bit addresses on old CPUs */ I think the flag makes sense but it's name is confusing - 64BIT for a flag which means "maybe request 32-bit stack"! Suggest: +#define MAP_STACK 0x20000 /* 31bit or 64bit address for stack, */ + /* whichever is faster on this CPU */ Also, is this _only_ useful for thread stacks, or are there other memory allocations where 31-bitness affects execution speed on old P4s? -- Jamie -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org