This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Count number of logical processors sharing L2 cache
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 09:09:06 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Count number of logical processors sharing L2 cache
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAMe9rOoy2YaQTdyqZpQ3=ytDc5dywNshzHAN2ymN60=L5KwbiA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAMe9rOoq8MNkX0GvoePQ-C51mfUr2ikrRJgqCZE0CoGoJEmOOw at mail dot gmail dot com> <d4cf36ee-f402-41fe-5108-e072b47f2399 at redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOpUuYboLH9WgyHH4HiBaSBXJ+uB=MPUft2S26N+wYJ9-A at mail dot gmail dot com> <76801b5c-7770-23a9-9b7c-4e44722247e1 at redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOqAuxZZ=gpd1zXvbRrsqjhT8G6C9WBbpwaqa65s=-ZTnQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <57449424 dot 1000009 at redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOpzKgS_uNz1ZFg-sUxCbuY4tFOy19eLjyFaO7UbNYUr1g at mail dot gmail dot com> <574D994F dot 5050207 at redhat dot com> <CAMe9rOq1UkT_uCqtt33KOxt_+gfpg9MHd6pV0W76_CMBgafm9g at mail dot gmail dot com> <574DAD29 dot 4060104 at redhat dot com>
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Carlos O'Donell <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 05/31/2016 10:57 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Carlos O'Donell <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/24/2016 05:35 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>> CAT dedicates part of L3 cache to certain processor or process so
>>>> that L3 cache is always available to them. Glibc tries not to take all
>>>> L3 cache in memcpy/memset so thar L3 cache is available for other
>>>> operations within the same process as well as to other processor/process.
>>>> CAT and glibc work at different angels. There is no direct conflict between
>>>> CAT and glibc. At the moment, I am not sure if CAT-aware glibc will
>>>> improve performance.
>>> What do you mean by "no direct conflict?"
>>> If glibc tuns its own algorithms to use 1/4 of L3, but CAT has only
>>> allocated 1/5 of L3 to that process, then glibc's algoirthms, whose
>>> intent was to use a small amount of L3 are now using *more* L3 than
>>> the entire process has and that could impact performance?
>> Cache sizes are only used for instructions selections in
>> string/memory functions, which don't use cache directly.
>> Glibc has NO control whatsoever on how much cache
>> string/memory functions use.
> Even if glibc doesn't use cache directly, it's making algorithm choices
> based on those sizes and tunings.
> For example:
> 765 /* The large memcpy micro benchmark in glibc shows that 6 times of
> 766 shared cache size is the approximate value above which non-temporal
> 767 store becomes faster. */
> 768 __x86_shared_non_temporal_threshold = __x86_shared_cache_size * 6;
> If, for example, CAT changed the shared L3 cache size to be smaller, would
> it invalidate the above static tuning?
CAT guarantees a lower limit of cache available to a process and
glibc makes sure that a process doesn't use too much of it in
string/memory functions. I don't see there is a direct conflict.