[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150106080948.GA18346@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 17:09:48 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm/slub: optimize alloc/free fastpath by removing
preemption on/off
On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 07:03:12PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 10:36 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > - preempt_disable();
> > - c = this_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab);
> > + do {
> > + tid = this_cpu_read(s->cpu_slab->tid);
> > + c = this_cpu_ptr(s->cpu_slab);
> > + } while (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT) && unlikely(tid != c->tid));
> > + barrier();
>
> I don't see the compiler reodering the object/page stores below, since c
> is updated in the loop anyway. Is this really necessary (same goes for
> slab_free)? The generated code by gcc 4.8 looks correct without it.
> Additionally, the implied barriers for preemption control aren't really
> the same semantics used here (if that is actually the reason why you are
> using them).
Hello,
I'd like to use tid as a pivot so it should be fetched before fetching
anything on c. Is it impossible even if !CONFIG_PREEMPT without
barrier()?
Thanks.
--
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