On Tuesday 05 February 2008 09:30, Andrew Morton wrote:
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...
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...
--