[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070626105602.GD2691@ff.dom.local>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:56:02 +0200
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, chris@...ee.ca,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] long freezes on thinkpad t60
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 06:42:10PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
...
> They should also improve performance in heavily contended case due to
> the nature of how they spin, but I know that's not something you want
> to hear about. And theoretically there should be no reason why xadd is
> any slower than dec and look at the status flags, should there? I never
> implementedit in optimised assembly to test though...
...
BTW, could you explain why the below diagnose doesn't relate
to your solution?
On 06/21/2007 12:08 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
...
> So it seems the problem was that if a core kept _truly_ modifying a
> cacheline via atomics in a high enough frequency, it could artificially
> starve the other core. (which would keep waiting for the cacheline to be
> released one day, and which kept the first core from ever making any
> progress) To me that looks like a real problem on the hardware side -
> shouldnt cacheline ownership be arbitrated a bit better than that?
>
Thanks & regards,
Jarek P.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists