From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:47:36 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802041542570.4774@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200802051010.49372.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > erk, sorry, I misremembered. I was about to merge all the patches we
> > weren't going to merge. oops.
>
> While you're there, can you drop the patch(es?) I commented on
> and didn't get an answer to. Like the ones that open code their
> own locking primitives and do risky looking things with barriers
> to boot...
That patch will be moved to a special archive for
microbenchmarks. It shows the same issues like the __unlock patch.
> Also, WRT this one:
> slub-use-non-atomic-bit-unlock.patch
>
> This is strange that it is unwanted. Avoiding atomic operations
> is a pretty good idea. The fact that it appears to be slower on
> some microbenchmark on some architecture IMO either means that
> their __clear_bit_unlock or the CPU isn't implemented so well...
Its slower on x86_64 and that is a pretty important arch. So
I am to defer this until we have analyzed the situation some more. Could
there be some effect of atomic ops on the speed with which a cacheline is
released?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-02-04 23:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-02-04 20:08 [git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25 Christoph Lameter
2008-02-04 22:28 ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-04 22:30 ` Andrew Morton
2008-02-04 23:04 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-02-04 23:10 ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-04 23:47 ` Christoph Lameter [this message]
2008-02-05 0:05 ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-05 0:22 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-02-05 0:32 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-02-05 0:42 ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-05 1:15 ` Christoph Lameter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.64.0802041542570.4774@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com \
--to=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).