From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:47:36 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25 In-Reply-To: <200802051010.49372.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Message-ID: References: <20080204142845.4c734f94.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080204143053.9fac9eac.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200802051010.49372.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrew Morton , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: 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: email@kvack.org