Re: [Lhms-devel] [RFC] buddy allocator without bitmap [2/4]

[Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>]

Dave Hansen wrote:

> On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 16:05, Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA wrote:
> 
>>I understand using these macros cleans up codes as I used them in my previous
>>version.
>>
>>In the previous version, I used SetPagePrivate()/ClearPagePrivate()/PagePrivate().
>>But these are "atomic" operation and looks very slow.
>>This is why I doesn't used these macros in this version.
>>
>>My previous version, which used set_bit/test_bit/clear_bit, shows very bad performance
>>on my test, and I replaced it.
>>
>>If I made a mistake on measuring the performance and set_bit/test_bit/clear_bit
>>is faster than what I think, I'd like to replace them.
> 
> 
> Sorry, I misread your comment:
> 
> /* Atomic operation is needless here */
> 
> I read "needless" as "needed".  Would it make any more sense to you to
> say "already have lock, don't need atomic ops", instead?
> 
Thanks. I'm not so good at writing good comment, as you know :).
I'll rewrite it.


-- 
--the clue is these footmarks leading to the door.--
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>