From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] slab fixes for 3.2-rc4
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 11:27:04 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFy8DpY-Cuq8B7pOLEjZkiiaxCUE0sEQv8uTX_WZXnUJwg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1201051210040.25706@router.home>
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com> wrote:
>
> XADD and ADD have the same cycle count if the ADD is used to add to a
> memory location. Both use 4 microops.
Christ, stop counting uops. They are some random internal
microarchitectural detail, and ignores things like processor uop
scheduling and decoding issues.
The thing that matters is (a) performance and (b) code sanity.
The "local_cpu_return()" operations fail *seriously* in the code
sanity department. They are a fundamentally insane operation.
And nothing you have said says "it's a huge performance win" to me.
First off, there aren't even very many users, and the users there are
seem to not even be all that performance-critical.
For statistics, just regular "add" is the normal thing to do. The
add_return thing is insane, for all the reasons I already outlined. It
*fundamentally* doesn't have any sane semantics. Just remove it.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-05 19:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-29 18:02 [GIT PULL] slab fixes for 3.2-rc4 Pekka Enberg
2011-11-29 19:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-11-29 19:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-20 9:47 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-12-20 16:23 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-20 16:31 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-12-20 19:28 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-20 20:28 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-21 8:08 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-12-21 17:09 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-21 15:16 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-12-21 17:05 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-22 2:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-22 16:05 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-28 10:25 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-12-22 14:58 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-12-22 16:08 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-22 17:58 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-12-22 18:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-12-22 18:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-12-23 16:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-12-23 20:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-04 15:30 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-01-04 16:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-04 17:00 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-01-04 23:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-01-05 19:15 ` Christoph Lameter
2012-01-05 19:27 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2011-12-22 18:47 ` Tejun Heo
2011-12-20 16:26 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-12-21 8:06 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-12-21 15:20 ` Christoph Lameter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CA+55aFy8DpY-Cuq8B7pOLEjZkiiaxCUE0sEQv8uTX_WZXnUJwg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.