[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <461F1C8E.1010104@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:00:46 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@....de>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...are.com>,
Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] i386 - pte update optimizations
Zachary Amsden a écrit :
>
> Yes. Even then, last time I clocked instructions, xchg was still slower
> than read / write, although I could be misremembering. And it's not
> totally clear that they will always be in cached state, however, and for
> SMP, we still want to drop the implicit lock in cases where the
> processor might not know they are cached exclusive, but we know there
> are no other racing users. And there are plenty of old processors out
> there to still make it worthwhile.
>
Is there one processor that benefit from this patch then ?
I couldnt get a win on my test machines, maybe they are not old enough ;)
umask() doesnt need xchg() atomic semantic. If several threads are using
umask() concurrently results are not guaranted anyway.
View attachment "umask.patch" of type "text/plain" (442 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists