From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-vn0-f48.google.com (mail-vn0-f48.google.com [209.85.216.48]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404266B0038 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2015 05:39:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vnbg129 with SMTP id g129so16617239vnb.9 for ; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 02:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-07v.sys.comcast.net. [2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:39]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id if6si3894830vdb.58.2015.06.08.02.39.39 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 08 Jun 2015 02:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 04:39:38 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] slub: RFC: Improving SLUB performance with 38% on NO-PREEMPT In-Reply-To: <20150608112359.04a3750e@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20150604103159.4744.75870.stgit@ivy> <1433471877.1895.51.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> <20150608112359.04a3750e@redhat.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer Cc: Eric Dumazet , Joonsoo Kim , Alexander Duyck , linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 8 Jun 2015, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > My real question is if disabling local interrupts is enough to avoid this? Yes the initial release of slub used interrupt disable in the fast paths. > And, does local irq disabling also stop preemption? Of course. -- 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