On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 01:44:36PM +, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 26/11/2020 02:46, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 03:35:46PM +, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >> map->swap_lock protects map->cleared from concurrent modification,
> >> however sbitmap_deferred_clear() is already atomica
On 26/11/2020 02:46, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 03:35:46PM +, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> map->swap_lock protects map->cleared from concurrent modification,
>> however sbitmap_deferred_clear() is already atomically drains it, so
>> it's guaranteed to not loose bits on concurrent
>>
On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 03:35:46PM +, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> map->swap_lock protects map->cleared from concurrent modification,
> however sbitmap_deferred_clear() is already atomically drains it, so
> it's guaranteed to not loose bits on concurrent
> sbitmap_deferred_clear().
>
> A one thread
On 24/11/2020 14:22, John Garry wrote:
> On 22/11/2020 15:35, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> map->swap_lock protects map->cleared from concurrent modification,
>> however sbitmap_deferred_clear() is already atomically drains it, so
>> it's guaranteed to not loose bits on concurrent
>> sbitmap_deferred_cl
On 22/11/2020 15:35, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
map->swap_lock protects map->cleared from concurrent modification,
however sbitmap_deferred_clear() is already atomically drains it, so
it's guaranteed to not loose bits on concurrent
sbitmap_deferred_clear().
A one threaded tag heavy test on top of nul
map->swap_lock protects map->cleared from concurrent modification,
however sbitmap_deferred_clear() is already atomically drains it, so
it's guaranteed to not loose bits on concurrent
sbitmap_deferred_clear().
A one threaded tag heavy test on top of nullbk showed ~1.5% t-put
increase, and 3% -> 1%
6 matches
Mail list logo