Re: [git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25

!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...>
Cc: <clameter@...>, <torvalds@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-mm@...>
Date: Monday, February 4, 2008 - 7:10 pm

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...
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25, Christoph Lameter, (Mon Feb 4, 4:08 pm)
Re: [git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25, Andrew Morton, (Mon Feb 4, 6:28 pm)
Re: [git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25, Andrew Morton, (Mon Feb 4, 6:30 pm)
Re: [git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25, Nick Piggin, (Mon Feb 4, 7:10 pm)
Re: [git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25, Christoph Lameter, (Mon Feb 4, 7:47 pm)
Re: [git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25, Nick Piggin, (Mon Feb 4, 8:05 pm)
Re: [git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25, Christoph Lameter, (Mon Feb 4, 8:32 pm)
Re: [git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25, Nick Piggin, (Mon Feb 4, 8:42 pm)
Re: [git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25, Christoph Lameter, (Mon Feb 4, 9:15 pm)
Re: [git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25, Christoph Lameter, (Mon Feb 4, 8:22 pm)
Re: [git pull] SLUB updates for 2.6.25, Christoph Lameter, (Mon Feb 4, 7:04 pm)