Re: [GIT PULL] slab fixes for 3.2-rc4

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 18:19 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > machines.  (cc'ing arch) Does anyone have better insight here?  How
> > much more expensive are local irq save/restore compared to inc/dec'ing
> > preempt count on various archs?
> 
> I think powerpc does sw irq disable, so it's pretty much the same.

On 64-bit only, but it's probably still better than going for an atomic
op, our atomics tend to be handled at the l2 level and so are sloooow.

 .../...

> So I really suspect that we could just say: "make the irq-safe version
> be the *only* version", and no architecture will really care. Sure, it
> can be more expensive, but it usually isn't. Only when done badly and
> stupidly is it nasty.

Agreed, keep it simple, or we'll just grow more bugs like this one.

Cheers,
Ben.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/