Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 Feb 2008 15:47:36 -0800 (PST) | From | Christoph Lameter <> | Subject | Re: [git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25 |
| |
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?
| |