[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1501082133350.22140@gentwo.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 21:34:07 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
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 Thu, 8 Jan 2015, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > You'd need a smp_wmb() in between tid and c in the loop then, which
> > looks quite unpleasant. All in all disabling preemption isn't really
> > that expensive, and you should redo your performance number if you go
> > this way.
>
> This barrier() is not for read/write synchronization between cpus.
> All read/write operation to cpu_slab would happen on correct cpu in
> successful case. What I'd need to guarantee here is to prevent
> reordering between fetching operation for correctness of algorithm. In
> this case, barrier() seems enough to me. Am I wrong?
You are right.
--
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