Re: [PATCH 2/3] slub: Support for array operations
From: Christoph Lameter
Date: Wed Feb 11 2015 - 17:06:56 EST
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > > This is quite an expensive lock with irqsave.
> > Yes but we take it for all partial pages.
> Sure, that is good, but this might be a contention point. In a micro
> benchmark, this contention should be visible, but in real use-cases the
> given subsystem also need to spend time to use these elements before
> requesting a new batch (as long as NIC cleanup cycles don't get too
Yes definitely it will be a contention point. There is no way around it.
> > Yup the page access is shared but there is one per page. Contention is
> > unlikely.
> Yes, contention is unlikely, but every atomic operation is expensive.
> On my system the measured cost is 8ns, and a lock/unlock does two, thus
> 16ns. Which we then do per page freelist.
Not sure what we can do about this.
> > We can require that interrupt are off when the functions are called. Then
> > we can avoid the "save" part?
> Yes, we could also do so with an "_irqoff" variant of the func call,
> but given we are defining the API we can just require this from the
Allright. Lets do that then.
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/