[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200803121013.20810.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:13:20 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
"Christoph Lameter" <clameter@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Implement slub fastpath with sequence number
On Wednesday 12 March 2008 01:45, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
wrote:
> > Wow. I applaud the effort to micro optimise things ;)
> >
> > But I hope this doesn't get merged until macro-regressions in SLUB
> > are verified to be fixed. It's pretty clear that SLUB's problem is
> > not fastpath performance, so I think this would be premature
> > optimisation.
>
> What regressions are you referring to? The SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN
> regression patch you sent is being merged. What else?
The oracle/tpcc one I don't know if it has been fixed?
> And FWIW, I don't like the patch because it makes the code very hairy.
> But I don't see why we shouldn't merge SLUB fast-path optimizations if
> they're clean and you have the numbers to show it's a gain even if
> there are other remaining regressions.
I'm talking about this patch specifically though. It makes it much
harder to work with.
--
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