[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710181858240.4685@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:01:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Yes that is what I attempted to do with the write barrier. To my knowledge
> > there are no reads that could bleed out and I wanted to avoid a full fence
> > instruction there.
>
> Oh, OK. Bit risky ;) You might be right, but anyway I think it
> should be just as fast with the optimised bit_unlock on most
> architectures.
How expensive is the fence? An store with release semantics would be safer
and okay for IA64.
> Which reminds me, it would be interesting to test the ia64
> implementation I did. For the non-atomic unlock, I'm actually
> doing an atomic operation there so that it can use the release
> barrier rather than the mf. Maybe it's faster the other way around
> though? Will be useful to test with something that isn't a trivial
> loop, so the slub case would be a good benchmark.
Lets avoid mf (too expensive) and just use a store with release semantics.
Where can I find your patchset? I looked through lkml but did not see it.
-
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