[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: kmalloc without GFP_xxx?

    On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Jörn Engel wrote:

    > On Wed, 29 June 2005 17:14:32 +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
    > >
    > > This is why I always use _irqsave. Less error prone.
    > > And locking is a very easy to get 'slightly' wrong, thus
    > > I trade 0.1% of performance for code simplicity.
    > But sometimes you get lucky and trade 100ms latency for code
    > simplicity. Of course, the audio people don't mind anymore, now that
    > we have all sorts of realtime patches. Everyone's happy!

    God! If you are holding a spin_lock for 100ms, something is terribly
    wrong, especialy since you better not schedule holding that spin_lock.
    Spinlocks are _suppose_ to be for quick things. The difference in latency
    between a *_lock and *_lock_irqsave only effects UP, on SMP both will give
    the same latency, since another CPU might be busy spinning while waiting
    for that lock, heck, on SMP the latency of *_lock can actually be higher,
    since, as I already said, the other CPU will even have to wait while the
    CPU that has the lock is servicing interrupts.

    Although I must say that with all the realtime patches I'm happy :-)

    -- Steve

    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: 2005-06-29 16:58    [W:0.020 / U:91.400 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site