On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Nick Piggin wrote: > > erk, sorry, I misremembered. I was about to merge all the patches we > > weren't going to merge. oops. > > While you're there, can you drop the patch(es?) I commented on > and didn't get an answer to. Like the ones that open code their > own locking primitives and do risky looking things with barriers > to boot...
That patch will be moved to a special archive for microbenchmarks. It shows the same issues like the __unlock patch. > Also, WRT this one: > slub-use-non-atomic-bit-unlock.patch > > This is strange that it is unwanted. Avoiding atomic operations > is a pretty good idea. The fact that it appears to be slower on > some microbenchmark on some architecture IMO either means that > their __clear_bit_unlock or the CPU isn't implemented so well... Its slower on x86_64 and that is a pretty important arch. So I am to defer this until we have analyzed the situation some more. Could there be some effect of atomic ops on the speed with which a cacheline is released? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
