Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:45:01 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Slab allocator Message-ID: <3C7D454D.3B9C3A69@mindspring.com> References: <200202271926.g1RJQCm29905@apollo.backplane.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202271128580.97278-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <20020227194256.GR80761@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> [020227 11:40] wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Matthew Dillon wrote: > > > Well, one thing I've noticed right off the bat is that the code > > > is trying to take advantage of per-cpu queues but is still > > > having to obtain a per-cpu mutex to lock the per-cpu queue. > > > > I was wondering abuot that myself :-) > > It's basically the pre-emption stuff you guys are wondering about > along with the possiblity of free'ing back to another cpu's > cache that may be an issue. > > Jeff, are you fee'ing memory back to the cache it was initially > allocated from or not? See my other posting. The way to deal with this is to have a per CPU "work to do" queue, which is only locked when it is written to by another CPU, and only locked by the local CPU when it is non-empty, in order to empty it, where the empty-check can be done without locking. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C7D454D.3B9C3A69>