Re: SLUB: Avoid atomic operation for slab_unlock

[Christoph Lameter]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> Ah, thanks, but can we just use my earlier patch that does the
> proper __bit_spin_unlock which is provided by
> bit_spin_lock-use-lock-bitops.patch

Ok.

> This primitive should have a better chance at being correct, and
> also potentially be more optimised for each architecture (it
> only has to provide release consistency).

Yes that is what I attempted to do with the write barrier. To my knowledge 
there are no reads that could bleed out and I wanted to avoid a full fence 
instruction there.

> I have attached the patch here just for reference, but actually
> I am submitting it properly as part of a patch series today, now
> that the base bit lock patches have been sent upstream.

Good. Andrew: Drop my patch when this goes in.
-
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/