[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 09/10] SLUB: Do our own locking via slab_lock and slab_unlock.
    On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

    > Is this actually a speedup on any architecture to roll your own locking
    > rather than using bit spinlock?

    It avoids one load from memory when allocating and the release is simply
    writing the page->flags back. Less instructions.

    > I am not exactly convinced that smp_wmb() is a good idea to have in your
    > unlock, rather than the normally required smp_mb() that every other open
    > coded lock in the kernel is using today. If you comment every code path
    > where a load leaking out of the critical section would not be a problem,
    > then OK it may be correct, but I still don't think it is worth the
    > maintenance overhead.

    I thought you agreed that release semantics only require a write barrier?
    The issue here is that other processors see the updates before the
    updates to page-flags.

    A load leaking out of a critical section would require that the result of
    the load is not used to update other information before the slab_unlock
    and that the source of the load is not overwritten in the critical
    section. That does not happen in sluib.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-10-30 19:35    [W:0.019 / U:2.396 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site