* Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I tried to send uli a patch to just add caching. No go. I sent > > *another* patch to at least make glibc use a sane interface (and > > the cache if it needs to fall back on /proc/stat for some legacy > > reason). We'll see what happens. > > FWIW a rerun with this modified LD_PRELOAD that does caching seems > to have the same performance as the version that does > sched_getaffinity. > > So you're right. Caching indeed helps and my assumption that the > child would only do it once was incorrect. You should have known that your assumption was wrong not just from a quick look at the strace output or a quick look at the glibc sources, but also because i pointed out the caching angle to you in the sysconf() discussion: http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/14/9 repeatedly: http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/17/149 and Denys Vlasenko pointed out the caching angle as well: http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/5/17/183 But you kept pushing for your new syscall for upstream integration, ignoring all contrary evidence and ignoring all contrary feedback, without even *once* checking where and how it would integrate into glibc ... Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>