Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Christoph Lameter
Date: Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 6:21 pm

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:


Ok.


Yes that is what I attempted to do with the write barrier. To my knowledge 
there are no reads that could bleed out and I wanted to avoid a full fence 
instruction there.


Good. Andrew: Drop my patch when this goes in.
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock, Nick Piggin, (Thu Oct 18, 4:49 pm)
Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock, Christoph Lameter, (Thu Oct 18, 6:21 pm)
Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock, Nick Piggin, (Thu Oct 18, 6:56 pm)
Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock, Christoph Lameter, (Thu Oct 18, 7:01 pm)
Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock, Nick Piggin, (Thu Oct 18, 7:12 pm)
[IA64] Reduce __clear_bit_unlock overhead, Christoph Lameter, (Thu Oct 18, 8:26 pm)
Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock, Christoph Lameter, (Fri Oct 19, 4:20 am)