[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1292431839.2708.30.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:50:39 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [cpuops cmpxchg V2 3/5] irq_work: Use per cpu atomics instead
of regular atomics
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 17:32 +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On 12/14/2010 05:28 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > The irq work queue is a per cpu object and it is sufficient for
> > synchronization if per cpu atomics are used. Doing so simplifies
> > the code and reduces the overhead of the code.
> >
> > Before:
> >
> > christoph@...ux-2.6$ size kernel/irq_work.o
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 451 8 1 460 1cc kernel/irq_work.o
> >
> > After:
> >
> > christoph@...ux-2.6$ size kernel/irq_work.o
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> > 438 8 1 447 1bf kernel/irq_work.o
> >
> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
>
> Peter, can you please ack this one?
I guess so, I don't much like the bare preempt_disable/enable there, and
I'm wondering, aren't %fs prefixed insn slower than regular insn? Does
it really pay to avoid this one address computation if there's multiple
users in a function. %fs prefixes do take another byte, so it will also
result in larger code at some point.
--
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