Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 04 Oct 2002 23:25:52 +0200 | From | Manfred Spraul <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |