[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0706262249590.8675@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...pl>,
	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 Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> I don't know why my unlock sequence should be that much slower? Unlocked
> mov vs unlocked add? Definitely in dumb micro-benchmark testing it wasn't
> twice as slow (IIRC).
Oh, that releasing "add" can be unlocked, and only the holder of the lock 
ever touches that field?
I must not have looked closely enough. In that case, I withdraw that 
objection, and the sequence-number-based spinlock sounds like a perfectly 
fine one.
Yes, the add will be slightly slower than the plain byte move, and the 
locked xadd will be slightly slower than a regular locked add, but 
compared to the serialization cost, that should be small. For some reason 
I thought you needed a locked instruction for the unlock too.
So try it with just a byte counter, and test some stupid micro-benchmark 
on both a P4 and a Core 2 Duo, and if it's in the noise, maybe we can make 
it the normal spinlock sequence just because it isn't noticeably slower.
In fact, I think a "incb <mem>" instruction is even a byte shorter than 
"movb $1,mem", and with "unlock" being inlined, that could actually be a 
slight _win_.
			Linus
-
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
 
