[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802041542570.4774@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:47:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > erk, sorry, I misremembered. I was about to merge all the patches we
> > weren't going to merge. oops.
>
> While you're there, can you drop the patch(es?) I commented on
> and didn't get an answer to. Like the ones that open code their
> own locking primitives and do risky looking things with barriers
> to boot...
That patch will be moved to a special archive for
microbenchmarks. It shows the same issues like the __unlock patch.
> Also, WRT this one:
> slub-use-non-atomic-bit-unlock.patch
>
> This is strange that it is unwanted. Avoiding atomic operations
> is a pretty good idea. The fact that it appears to be slower on
> some microbenchmark on some architecture IMO either means that
> their __clear_bit_unlock or the CPU isn't implemented so well...
Its slower on x86_64 and that is a pretty important arch. So
I am to defer this until we have analyzed the situation some more. Could
there be some effect of atomic ops on the speed with which a cacheline is
released?
--
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