lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] slub: Support for array operations
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:

> > +
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&n->list_lock, flags);
>
> This is quite an expensive lock with irqsave.

Yes but we take it for all partial pages.

> Yet another lock cost.

Yup the page access is shared but there is one per page. Contention is
unlikely.

> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&n->list_lock, flags);
> > + return allocated;
>
> I estimate (on my CPU) the locking cost itself is more than 32ns, plus
> the irqsave (which I've also found quite expensive, alone 14ns). Thus,
> estimated 46ns. Single elem slub fast path cost is 18-19ns. Thus 3-4
> elem bulking should be enough to amortized the cost, guess we are still
> good :-)

We can require that interrupt are off when the functions are called. Then
we can avoid the "save" part?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-11 20:21    [W:0.098 / U:0.320 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site