From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp ([10.0.50.75]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (8.12.10/Fujitsu Gateway) id i7QNNkwH005239 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:23:46 +0900 (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com) Received: from s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (8.12.10/Fujitsu Domain Master) id i7QNNkmZ008206 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:23:46 +0900 (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com) Received: from fjmail505.fjmail.jp.fujitsu.com (fjmail505-0.fjmail.jp.fujitsu.com [10.59.80.104]) by s6.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (8.12.11) id i7QNNjuO017262 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:23:45 +0900 (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com) Received: from jp.fujitsu.com (fjscan502-0.fjmail.jp.fujitsu.com [10.59.80.122]) by fjmail505.fjmail.jp.fujitsu.com (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2001.07.26.11.50.p9) with ESMTP id <0I32005CGUBK7Z@fjmail505.fjmail.jp.fujitsu.com> for linux-mm@kvack.org; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:23:45 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 08:28:56 +0900 From: Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA Subject: Re: [Lhms-devel] [RFC] buddy allocator without bitmap [2/4] In-reply-to: <1093561869.2984.360.camel@nighthawk> Message-id: <412E7238.8060601@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <412DD1AA.8080408@jp.fujitsu.com> <1093535402.2984.11.camel@nighthawk> <412E6CC3.8060908@jp.fujitsu.com> <1093561869.2984.360.camel@nighthawk> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Dave Hansen Cc: Linux Kernel ML , linux-mm , lhms , William Lee Irwin III List-ID: Dave Hansen wrote: > On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 16:05, Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA wrote: > >>I understand using these macros cleans up codes as I used them in my previous >>version. >> >>In the previous version, I used SetPagePrivate()/ClearPagePrivate()/PagePrivate(). >>But these are "atomic" operation and looks very slow. >>This is why I doesn't used these macros in this version. >> >>My previous version, which used set_bit/test_bit/clear_bit, shows very bad performance >>on my test, and I replaced it. >> >>If I made a mistake on measuring the performance and set_bit/test_bit/clear_bit >>is faster than what I think, I'd like to replace them. > > > Sorry, I misread your comment: > > /* Atomic operation is needless here */ > > I read "needless" as "needed". Would it make any more sense to you to > say "already have lock, don't need atomic ops", instead? > Thanks. I'm not so good at writing good comment, as you know :). I'll rewrite it. -- --the clue is these footmarks leading to the door.-- KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki -- 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: aart@kvack.org