On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:

quoted text
> > erk, sorry, I misremembered.   I was about to merge all the patches we
> > weren't going to merge.  oops.
> 
> 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...

That patch will be moved to a special archive for 
microbenchmarks. It shows the same issues like the __unlock patch.
 
quoted text
> 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...

Its slower on x86_64 and that is a pretty important arch. So 
I am to defer this until we have analyzed the situation some more. Could 
there be some effect of atomic ops on the speed with which a cacheline is 
released?

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/