* Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:

quoted text
> Hi Ingo,
> 
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> >
> > * 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.

... thought of that missing Cc: line entry exactly 1.3 seconds after 
having sent the mail :)

Christoph, any preferences/suggestions?

	Ingo
--
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/