[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802041700170.5438@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:15:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc: willy@...ux.intel.com, 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:
> Anyway, not saying the operations are useless, but they should be
> made available to core kernel and implemented per-arch. (if they are
> found to be useful)
The problem is to establish the usefulness. These measures may bring 1-2%
in a pretty unstable operation mode assuming that the system is doing
repetitive work. The micro optimizations seem to be often drowned out
by small other changes to the system.
There is the danger that a gain is seen that is not due to the patch but
due to other changes coming about because code is moved since patches
change execution paths.
Plus they may be only possible on a specific architecture. I know that our
IA64 hardware has special measures ensuring certain behavior of atomic ops
etc, I guess Intel has similar tricks up their sleeve. At 8p there are
likely increasing problems with lock starvation where your ticketlock
helps. That is why I thought we better defer the stuff until there is some
more evidence that these are useful.
I got particularly nervous about these changes after I saw small
performance drops due to the __unlock patch on the dual quad. That should
have been a consistent gain.
--
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