[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4692A1D0.50308@mbligh.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:00:00 -0700
From: Martin Bligh <mbligh@...igh.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/10] [RFC] SLUB patches for more functionality, performance
and maintenance
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Martin Bligh wrote:
>
>> Those numbers came from Mathieu Desnoyers (LTTng) if you
>> want more details.
>
> Okay the source for these numbers is in his paper for the OLS 2006: Volume
> 1 page 208-209? I do not see the exact number that you referred to there.
Nope, he was a direct co-author on the paper, was
working here, and measured it.
> He seems to be comparing spinlock acquire / release vs. cmpxchg. So I
> guess you got your material from somewhere else?
>
> Also the cmpxchg used there is the lockless variant. cmpxchg 29 cycles w/o
> lock prefix and 112 with lock prefix.
>
> I see you reference another paper by Desnoyers:
> http://tree.celinuxforum.org/CelfPubWiki/ELC2006Presentations?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=celf2006-desnoyers.pdf
>
> I do not see anything relevant there. Where did those numbers come from?
>
> The lockless cmpxchg is certainly an interesting idea. Certain for some
> platforms I could disable preempt and then do a lockless cmpxchg.
Matheiu, can you give some more details? Obviously the exact numbers
will vary by archicture, machine size, etc, but it's a good point
for discussion.
M.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists