[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTin02TYMurwmGZi2meSmVg6W4a37qmOLJLrFvMCm@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:47:12 +0200
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [thiscpuops upgrade 10/10] Lockless (and preemptless) fastpaths
for slub
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> > The critical section begins with the retrieval of the tid and it ends with
>> > the replacement of the tid with the newly generated one. This means that
>> > all state data for the alloc and free operation needs to be retrieved in
>> > that critical section. The change must be saved with the final
>> > cmpxchg_double of the critical section.
>>
>> Right and we don't need a *memory barrier* here because we're
>> accessing a per-CPU variable which means operations appear in-order.
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:
> The compiler is still free to rearrange the tid fetch. A possible
> optimization that the compiler may do is to move the tid fetch into the
> next if statement since that is the only block in which the tid variable
> is actually used.
Yes, which is why we need a *compiler barrier* but not a *memory barrier*.
--
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