login
Header Space

 
 

Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@...>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>, <akpm@...>, <linux-mm@...>
Date: Thursday, October 18, 2007 - 10:12 pm

On Friday 19 October 2007 12:01, Christoph Lameter wrote:

I'm not sure, I had an idea it was relatively expensive on ia64,
but I didn't really test with a good workload (a microbenchmark
probably isn't that good because it won't generate too much out
of order memory traffic that needs to be fenced).



OK, that's what I've done at the moment.



Infrastructure in -mm, starting at bitops-introduce-lock-ops.patch.
bit_spin_lock-use-lock-bitops.patch and ia64-lock-bitops.patch are
ones to look at.

The rest of the patches I have queued here, apart from the SLUB patch,
I guess aren't so interesting to you (they don't do anything fancy
like convert to non-atomic unlocks, just switch things like page and
buffer locks to use new bitops).
-
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, 7:49 pm)
Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock, Christoph Lameter, (Fri Oct 19, 7:20 am)
Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock, Christoph Lameter, (Thu Oct 18, 9:21 pm)
Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock, Nick Piggin, (Thu Oct 18, 9:56 pm)
Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock, Christoph Lameter, (Thu Oct 18, 10:01 pm)
Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock, Nick Piggin, (Thu Oct 18, 10:12 pm)
[IA64] Reduce __clear_bit_unlock overhead, Christoph Lameter, (Thu Oct 18, 11:26 pm)
speck-geostationary