Re: [PATCH] locking/atomic: Make test_and_*_bit() ordered on failure

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Aug 16, 2022 at 10:49 AM Jon Nettleton <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It is moot if Linus has already taken the patch, but with a stock
> kernel config I am
> still seeing a slight performance dip but only ~1-2% in the specific
> tests I was running.

It would be interesting to hear if you can pinpoint in the profiles
where the time is spent.

It might be some random place that really doesn't care about ordering
at all, and then we could easily rewrite _that_ particular case to do
the unordered test explicitly, ie something like

-        if (test_and_set_bit()) ...
+       if (test_bit() || test_and_set_bit()) ...

or even introduce an explicitly unordered "test_and_set_bit_relaxed()" thing.

                 Linus



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux