[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110504142532.GC17294@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 16:25:32 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
werner <w.landgraf@...ru>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [block IO crash] Re: 2.6.39-rc5-git2 boot crashs
Hello,
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 04:10:29PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > cases where the generic implementation is used. Has anyone measured
> > the difference against before the whole this_cpu conversion?
>
> Yes, that really wants to be done. The whole CMPXCHG_LOCAL ifdeffery
> should have been avoided in the first place. this_cpu_cmpxchg can
> really be implemented with preempt_enable/disable and the irqsafe
> variant in any case.
Yeah, slub code looks pretty scary with the #ifdefs. IIUC, the
problem was that cmpxchg_double is an optimization for fast path which
was already very light weight and an extra locked op or irq on/off
would have made considerable difference.
The cmpxchg_double optimization made the fast path go quite faster
when CPU supports it but it may as well slow things down considerably
if CPU doesn't, due to extra irq on/off's. Anyways, here's hoping
that the slow down is acceptable compared to the base code without
cmpxchg_double and the ugliness can be removed.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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