[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1325067910.6632.42.camel@pasglop>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 21:25:10 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] slab fixes for 3.2-rc4
On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 18:19 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > machines. (cc'ing arch) Does anyone have better insight here? How
> > much more expensive are local irq save/restore compared to inc/dec'ing
> > preempt count on various archs?
>
> I think powerpc does sw irq disable, so it's pretty much the same.
On 64-bit only, but it's probably still better than going for an atomic
op, our atomics tend to be handled at the l2 level and so are sloooow.
.../...
> So I really suspect that we could just say: "make the irq-safe version
> be the *only* version", and no architecture will really care. Sure, it
> can be more expensive, but it usually isn't. Only when done badly and
> stupidly is it nasty.
Agreed, keep it simple, or we'll just grow more bugs like this one.
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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