[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48AF0702.8040303@goop.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:35:46 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] smp_call_function: use rwlocks on queues rather than
rcu
Andi Kleen wrote:
> Right now my impression is that it is not well understood why
> the kmalloc makes the IPI that much slower. In theory a kmalloc
> shouldn't be all that slow, it's essentially just a
> "disable interrupts; unlink object from cpu cache; enable interrupts"
> with some window dressing. kfree() is similar.
>
> Does it bounce a cache line on freeing perhaps?
I think it's just an assumption that it would be slower. Has anyone
measured it?
(Note: The measurements I posted do not cover this path, because it was
on a two cpu system, and it was always using the call-single path.)
J
--
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