From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:21:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock In-Reply-To: <200710190949.01019.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Message-ID: References: <200710190949.01019.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > Ah, thanks, but can we just use my earlier patch that does the > proper __bit_spin_unlock which is provided by > bit_spin_lock-use-lock-bitops.patch Ok. > This primitive should have a better chance at being correct, and > also potentially be more optimised for each architecture (it > only has to provide release consistency). 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. > I have attached the patch here just for reference, but actually > I am submitting it properly as part of a patch series today, now > that the base bit lock patches have been sent upstream. Good. Andrew: Drop my patch when this goes in. -- 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