From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 12:12:00 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200710191212.00653.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710181858240.4685@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
On Friday 19 October 2007 12:01, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > Yes that is what I attempted to do with the write barrier. To my
> > > knowledge there are no reads that could bleed out and I wanted to avoid
> > > a full fence instruction there.
> >
> > Oh, OK. Bit risky ;) You might be right, but anyway I think it
> > should be just as fast with the optimised bit_unlock on most
> > architectures.
>
> How expensive is the fence? An store with release semantics would be safer
> and okay for IA64.
I'm not sure, I had an idea it was relatively expensive on ia64,
but I didn't really test with a good workload (a microbenchmark
probably isn't that good because it won't generate too much out
of order memory traffic that needs to be fenced).
> > Which reminds me, it would be interesting to test the ia64
> > implementation I did. For the non-atomic unlock, I'm actually
> > doing an atomic operation there so that it can use the release
> > barrier rather than the mf. Maybe it's faster the other way around
> > though? Will be useful to test with something that isn't a trivial
> > loop, so the slub case would be a good benchmark.
>
> Lets avoid mf (too expensive) and just use a store with release semantics.
OK, that's what I've done at the moment.
> Where can I find your patchset? I looked through lkml but did not see it.
Infrastructure in -mm, starting at bitops-introduce-lock-ops.patch.
bit_spin_lock-use-lock-bitops.patch and ia64-lock-bitops.patch are
ones to look at.
The rest of the patches I have queued here, apart from the SLUB patch,
I guess aren't so interesting to you (they don't do anything fancy
like convert to non-atomic unlocks, just switch things like page and
buffer locks to use new bitops).
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-19 2:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-18 22:15 Christoph Lameter
2007-10-18 22:31 ` Andrew Morton
2007-10-18 23:49 ` Nick Piggin
2007-10-19 1:21 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-10-19 1:56 ` Nick Piggin
2007-10-19 2:01 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-10-19 2:12 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2007-10-19 3:26 ` [IA64] Reduce __clear_bit_unlock overhead Christoph Lameter
2007-10-19 11:20 ` SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock Christoph Lameter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200710191212.00653.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox