Re: [RFC 1/6] Framework

[Nick Piggin]

Andi Kleen wrote:

> > Then you can't use __local_xxx, and so many architectures will use
> > atomic instructions (the ones who don't are the ones with tripled
> > cacheline footprint of this structure).
>
>
> They are wrong then. atomic instructions is the wrong implementation
> and they would be better off with asm-generic. 

Yes I mean atomic and per-cpu. Same as asm-generic.

> If anything they should use per_cpu counters for interrupts and 
> use seq locks.

How would seqlocks help?

> Or just turn off the interrupts for a short time
> in the low level code.

This is exactly what mod_page_state does, which is what my patches
eliminate. For a small but significant performance improvement.

> > Sure i386 and x86-64 are happy, but this would probably slow down
> > most other architectures.
>
>
> I think it is better to fix the other architectures then - if they
> are really using a full scale bus lock for this they're just wrong.
>
> I don't think it is a good idea to do a large change in generic
> code just for dumb low level code.

It is not a large change at all, just some shuffling of mod_page_state
and friends to go under pre-existing interrupts-off sections.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
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/