[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200902191501.47564.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:01:46 +1030
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] generic-smp: remove kmalloc usage
On Thursday 19 February 2009 02:35:35 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday 17 February 2009 20:13:59 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > We should not bend backwards trying to preserve that kmalloc()
> > > [and prove that it's safe and race-free] - i.e. the burden of
> > > proof is on the person insisting that it's needed, not on the
> > > person wanting to remove it.
> >
> > Respectfully disagree. The kmalloc has been there for a very long time,
> > and doing fine AFAICT.
>
> The kmalloc(GFP_ATOMIC) has been in kernel/smp.c for about half
> a year
Oops, yes.
So if we care about the kmalloc, why didn't we see benchmarks when we
switched from the x86 smp_call_function_mask to the generic one? Or did
I just miss them (there's nothing in the git commit).
Now, I think the current patch is quite neat and may not been benchmarks to
justify it, but it'd still be nice if it were faster, but noone seems to know.
Rusty.
--
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