Re: [patch 00/10] [RFC] SLUB patches for more functionality,performance and maintenance

[David Miller]

From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 08:45:42 -0700 (PDT)

> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, David Miller wrote:
> 
> > From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx>
> > Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 20:49:52 -0700
> > 
> > > A cmpxchg is less costly than interrupt enabe/disable
> > 
> > This is cpu dependant, and in fact not true at all on Niagara
> > and several of the cpus in the UltraSPARC family.
> 
> Hmmm... So have alternate aloc/free paths depending on the cpu?

As Andi seemed to imply I don't even think cmpxchg is faster than
interrupt enable/disable on current generation AMD x86_64 chips, so
are you targetting this optimization solely at Intel x86 Core Duo
32-bit chips?  That's the only one I can see which will benefit from
this.  Are you going to probe the cpu sub-type and patch SLUB?

I really don't think this optimization is wise as even if you
could decide at build time, it's going to be a maintainence and
debugging nightmare to have to field bug reports given two different
locking schemes.

Please reconsider this change, thanks.

-
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/