Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] percpu_rw_semaphore: reimplement to not blockthe readers unnecessarily

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> On 11/07, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >
> > It looks sensible.
> >
> > Here I'm sending an improvement of the patch - I changed it so that there
> > are not two-level nested functions for the fast path and so that both
> > percpu_down_read and percpu_up_read use the same piece of code (to reduce
> > cache footprint).
> 
> IOW, the only change is that you eliminate "static update_fast_ctr()"
> and fold it into down/up_read which takes the additional argument.
> 
> Honestly, personally I do not think this is better, but I won't argue.
> I agree with everything but I guess we need the ack from Paul.

If you look at generated assembly (for x86-64), the footprint of my patch 
is 78 bytes shared for both percpu_down_read and percpu_up_read.

The footprint of your patch is 62 bytes for update_fast_ctr, 46 bytes for 
percpu_down_read and 20 bytes for percpu_up_read.

Mikulas
--
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/