Re: [GIT PULL] slab fixes for 3.2-rc4
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Date: Wed Dec 28 2011 - 05:25:49 EST
On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 18:19 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > machines. (cc'ing arch) Does anyone have better insight here? How
> > much more expensive are local irq save/restore compared to inc/dec'ing
> > preempt count on various archs?
> I think powerpc does sw irq disable, so it's pretty much the same.
On 64-bit only, but it's probably still better than going for an atomic
op, our atomics tend to be handled at the l2 level and so are sloooow.
> So I really suspect that we could just say: "make the irq-safe version
> be the *only* version", and no architecture will really care. Sure, it
> can be more expensive, but it usually isn't. Only when done badly and
> stupidly is it nasty.
Agreed, keep it simple, or we'll just grow more bugs like this one.
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/