Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 21:22:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 21:22:10 -0400 Received: from dp.samba.org ([66.70.73.150]:44419 "EHLO lists.samba.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 4 Oct 2002 21:22:06 -0400 Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 10:14:34 +1000 From: Anton Blanchard To: Manfred Spraul Cc: "Randy.Dunlap" , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mbligh@aracnet.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] patch-slab-split-03-tail Message-ID: <20021005001434.GA15031@krispykreme> References: <3D9E0760.8040507@colorfullife.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D9E0760.8040507@colorfullife.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 923 Lines: 25 > <<<<<<< > An object cache's CPU layer contains per-CPU state that must be > protected either by per-CPU locking or by disabling interrupts. We > selected per-CPU locking for several reasons: > [...] > x Performance. On most modern processors, grabbing an uncontended > lock is cheaper than modifying the processor interrupt level. > <<<<<<<< > > Which cpus have slow local_irq_disable() implementations? At least for > my Duron, this doesn't seem to be the case [~ 4 cpu cycles for cli] Rusty did some tests and found on the intel chips he tested local_irq_disable was slower. He posted the results to lkml a few weeks ago. On ppc64 it varies between chips. Anton - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/