[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46A0432C.8090207@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 15:07:56 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
CC: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, patches@...-64.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [15/58] i386: Rewrite sched_clock (cmpxchg8b)
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> I tried it with and without the LOCK prefix on my Pentium 4.
>
> Locked cmpxchg8b : 90 cycles
> Non locked cmpxchg8b: 30 cycles
> sti: 166 cycles
> cli: 159 cycles
>
> So, hrm, even if we use the locked version, it is still much faster than
> the sti/cli. I am thoughtful about the comment in asm-i386/system.h:
Curious: what does it look like if the memory is not in cache? I
found that cmpxchg is relatively slower than other rmw instructions
in that case.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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