[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1211071403320.9320@file.rdu.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 14:17:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Anton Arapov <anton@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] percpu_rw_semaphore: reimplement to not block
the readers unnecessarily
On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/07, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >
> > It looks sensible.
> >
> > Here I'm sending an improvement of the patch - I changed it so that there
> > are not two-level nested functions for the fast path and so that both
> > percpu_down_read and percpu_up_read use the same piece of code (to reduce
> > cache footprint).
>
> IOW, the only change is that you eliminate "static update_fast_ctr()"
> and fold it into down/up_read which takes the additional argument.
>
> Honestly, personally I do not think this is better, but I won't argue.
> I agree with everything but I guess we need the ack from Paul.
If you look at generated assembly (for x86-64), the footprint of my patch
is 78 bytes shared for both percpu_down_read and percpu_up_read.
The footprint of your patch is 62 bytes for update_fast_ctr, 46 bytes for
percpu_down_read and 20 bytes for percpu_up_read.
Mikulas
--
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