[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160309122217.GK6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 13:22:17 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Cc: "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel, Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Noam Camus <noamc@...hip.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: slub: Ensure that slab_unlock() is atomic
On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 05:23:26PM +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> > I did not follow through the maze, I think the few archs implementing
> > this simply do not include this file at all.
> >
> > I'll let the first person that cares about this worry about that :-)
>
> Ok - that's be me :-) although I really don't see much gains in case of ARC LLSC.
>
> For us, LD + BCLR + ST is very similar to LLOCK + BCLR + SCOND atleast in terms of
> cache coherency transactions !
The win would be in not having to ever retry the SCOND. Although in this
case, the contending CPU would be doing reads -- which I assume will not
cause a SCOND to fail, so it might indeed not make any difference.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists