Re: [Lhms-devel] [RFC] buddy allocator without bitmap [2/4]

[Dave Hansen]

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?

-- Dave

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/