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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:47 EST