Hi Ingo,

On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
quoted text
>
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
>
>> RCU can only control the lifetime of allocated memory blocks, which
>> forces all the call structures to be allocated.  This is expensive
>> compared to allocating them on the stack, which is the common case for
>> synchronous calls.
>>
>> This patch takes a different approach.  Rather than using RCU, the
>> queues are managed under rwlocks.  Adding or removing from the queue
>> requires holding the lock for writing, but multiple CPUs can walk the
>> queues to process function calls under read locks.  In the common
>> case, where the structures are stack allocated, the calling CPU need
>> only wait for its call to be done, take the lock for writing and
>> remove the call structure.
>>
>> Lock contention - particularly write vs read - is reduced by using
>> multiple queues.
>
> hm, is there any authorative data on what is cheaper on a big box, a
> full-blown MESI cache miss that occurs for every reader in this new
> fastpath, or a local SLAB/SLUB allocation+free that occurs with the
> current RCU approach?

Christoph might have an idea about it.
--
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/