[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0909301946510.11850@gentwo.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:49:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Chubb <peterc@...ato.unsw.edu.au>
cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Tejun Heo <teheo@...e.de>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
"Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
linux-ia64 <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET percpu#for-next] percpu: convert ia64 to dynamic percpu
and drop the old one, take#2
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Peter Chubb wrote:
> r3, r4 and r5 are currently unused by the kernel, and unused
> by GCC and ICC. Only hand-written assembler and weird compilers use
> those registers(and my virtual-machine monitor :-(). If you wanted to
> experiment, that'd be a starting place.
>
> I'm not sure of the advantage though -- TLB mapping is relatively
> cheap, and we're no longer hard-wiring the translation register.
Dynamic and static per cpu variables could use relative access to that
register. This would reduce code size, avoid the use of a TLB entry.
> You';d have to do somne careful benchmarking on a wide variety of
> workloads and machines to get a definitive answer.
I have some patches here that make heavy use of dynamic percpu allocations
in the allocators to optimize the alloc / free paths.
--
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