lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] patch-slab-split-03-tail
Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>
> Did you look at http://www.usenix.org/events/usenix01/bonwick.html
> for it?
>
Thanks for the link - that describes the newer, per-cpu extensions to
slab. Quite similar to the Linux implementation.

The text also contains a link to the original paper:

http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/bos94/bonwick.html

Bonwick used one partially sorted list [as linux in 2.2, and 2.4.<10],
instead of seperate lists - move tail was not an option.

The new paper contains one interesting comment:
<<<<<<<
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]


--
Manfred

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.056 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site