* Christoph Lameter ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> > As I am going back through the initial cmpxchg_local implementation, it
> > seems like it was executing __slab_alloc() with preemption disabled,
> > which is wrong. new_slab() is not designed for that.
>
> The version I send you did not use preemption.
>
> We need to make a decision if we want to go without preemption and cmpxchg
> or with preemption and cmpxchg_local.
>
I don't expect any performance improvements with cmpxchg() over irq
disable/restore. I think we'll have to use cmpxchg_local
Also, we may argue that locked cmpxchg will have more scalability impact
than cmpxchg_local. Actually, I expect the LOCK prefix to have a bigger
scalability impact than the irq save/restore pair.
> If we really want to do this then the implementation of all of these
> components need to result in competitive performance on all platforms.
>
The minor issue I see here is on architectures where we have to simulate
cmpxchg_local with irq save/restore. Depending on how we implement the
code, it may result in two irq save/restore pairs instead of one, which
could make the code slower. However, if we are clever enough in our
low-level primitive usage, I think we could make the code use
cmpxchg_local when available and fall back on only _one_ irq disabled
section surrounding the whole code for other architectures.
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
