[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070827222715.GA16982@Krystal>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:27:15 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SLUB use cmpxchg_local
* Christoph Lameter (clameter@....com) wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> > > The slow path would require disable preemption and two interrupt disables.
> > If the slow path have to call new_slab, then yes. But it seems that not
> > every slow path must call it, so for the other slow paths, only one
> > interrupt disable would be required.
>
> If we include new_slab then we get to 3 times:
>
> 1. In the cmpxchg_local emulation that fails
>
> 2. For the slow path
>
> 3. When calling the page allocator.
>
Hrm, I just want to certify one thing: A lot of code paths seems to go
to the slow path without requiring cmpxchg_local to execute at all. So
is the slow path more likely to be triggered by the (!object),
(!node_match) tests or by these same tests done in the redo after the
initial cmpxchg_local ?
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
-
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