From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 06:41:41 -0800 From: Paul Jackson Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Clean up of __alloc_pages Message-Id: <20051107064141.7be80c49.pj@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <436F29BF.3010804@yahoo.com.au> References: <20051028183326.A28611@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <20051106124944.0b2ccca1.pj@sgi.com> <436EC2AF.4020202@yahoo.com.au> <200511070442.58876.ak@suse.de> <20051106203717.58c3eed0.pj@sgi.com> <436EEF43.2050403@yahoo.com.au> <20051107014659.14c2631b.pj@sgi.com> <436F29BF.3010804@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: ak@suse.de, akpm@osdl.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Ok ... so a spinlock (task_lock) costs one barrier and one atomic more than an rcu_read_lock (on a preempt kernel where both spinlock and rcu_read_lock cost a preempt), or something like that. Thanks, Nick. -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Programmer, Linux Scalability Paul Jackson 1.925.600.0401 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org