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 i7R0MhwH032573 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:22:43 +0900 (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com) Received: from s0.gw.fujitsu.co.jp by m5.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (8.12.10/Fujitsu Domain Master) id i7R0MhmZ023829 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:22:43 +0900 (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com) Received: from fjmail506.fjmail.jp.fujitsu.com (fjmail506-0.fjmail.jp.fujitsu.com [10.59.80.106]) by s0.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (8.12.10) id i7R0MgKw024180 for ; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:22:42 +0900 (envelope-from kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com) Received: from jp.fujitsu.com (fjscan503-0.fjmail.jp.fujitsu.com [10.59.80.124]) by fjmail506.fjmail.jp.fujitsu.com (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2001.07.26.11.50.p9) with ESMTP id <0I3200AH7X1SDF@fjmail506.fjmail.jp.fujitsu.com> for linux-mm@kvack.org; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:22:41 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 09:27:53 +0900 From: Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA Subject: Re: [Lhms-devel] [RFC] buddy allocator without bitmap [2/4] In-reply-to: <20040826171840.4a61e80d.akpm@osdl.org> Message-id: <412E8009.3080508@jp.fujitsu.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <412DD1AA.8080408@jp.fujitsu.com> <1093535402.2984.11.camel@nighthawk> <412E6CC3.8060908@jp.fujitsu.com> <20040826171840.4a61e80d.akpm@osdl.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: haveblue@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, wli@holomorphy.com List-ID: Okay, I'll do more test and if I find atomic ops are slow, I'll add __XXXPagePrivate() macros. ps. I usually test codes on Xeon 1.8G x 2 server. -- Kame Andrew Morton wrote: > Hiroyuki KAMEZAWA wrote: > >>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. > > > That's surprising. But if you do intend to use non-atomic bitops then > please add __SetPagePrivate() and __ClearPagePrivate() -- --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