[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710301124520.11531@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock and
slab_unlock.
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Is this actually a speedup on any architecture to roll your own locking
> rather than using bit spinlock?
It avoids one load from memory when allocating and the release is simply
writing the page->flags back. Less instructions.
> I am not exactly convinced that smp_wmb() is a good idea to have in your
> unlock, rather than the normally required smp_mb() that every other open
> coded lock in the kernel is using today. If you comment every code path
> where a load leaking out of the critical section would not be a problem,
> then OK it may be correct, but I still don't think it is worth the
> maintenance overhead.
I thought you agreed that release semantics only require a write barrier?
The issue here is that other processors see the updates before the
updates to page-flags.
A load leaking out of a critical section would require that the result of
the load is not used to update other information before the slab_unlock
and that the source of the load is not overwritten in the critical
section. That does not happen in sluib.
-
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