[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0000014301223b3e-a73f3d59-8234-48f1-9888-9af32709a879-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 15:17:37 +0000
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/7] re-shrink 'struct page' when SLUB is on.
On Mon, 16 Dec 2013, Dave Hansen wrote:
> I'll do some testing and see if I can coax out any delta from the
> optimization myself. Christoph went to a lot of trouble to put this
> together, so I assumed that he had a really good reason, although the
> changelogs don't really mention any.
The cmpxchg on the struct page avoids disabling interrupts etc and
therefore simplifies the code significantly.
> I honestly can't imagine that a cmpxchg16 is going to be *THAT* much
> cheaper than a per-page spinlock. The contended case of the cmpxchg is
> way more expensive than spinlock contention for sure.
Make sure slub does not set __CMPXCHG_DOUBLE in the kmem_cache flags
and it will fall back to spinlocks if you want to do a comparison. Most
non x86 arches will use that fallback code.
--
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