Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 22:14:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 22:14:28 -0500 Received: from mail.xmailserver.org ([208.129.208.52]:7 "EHLO mail.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 22:14:13 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 19:25:01 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com To: "David S. Miller" cc: lm@bitmover.com, , , , , , Subject: Re: SMP/cc Cluster description In-Reply-To: <20011204.183601.22018455.davem@redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Larry McVoy > Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:36:46 -0800 > > OK, so start throwing stones at this. Once we have a memory model that > works, I'll go through the process model. > > What is the difference between your messages and spin locks? > Both seem to shuffle between cpus anytime anything interesting > happens. > > In the spinlock case, I can thread out the locks in the page cache > hash table so that the shuffling is reduced. In the message case, I > always have to talk to someone. Time ago I read an interesting article that implemented shared memory over network ( ATM in that case ) reproducing in large scale the cache/memory/bus computer architecture. Shared memory on each node was the equivalent of the CPU cache, a "generic shared memory repository" was the equivalent of the main memory and the snooping traffic was running on the network. I think I picked it up from ACM but I can't find it right now. - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/