[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46BFFDBD.6080804@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 02:44:13 -0400
From: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ak@...e.de, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
davem@...emloft.net, schwidefsky@...ibm.com, wensong@...ux-vs.org,
horms@...ge.net.au, wjiang@...ilience.com, cfriesen@...tel.com,
zlynx@....org, rpjday@...dspring.com, jesper.juhl@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on frv
David Howells wrote:
> Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> cpu_relax() contains a barrier, so it should do the right thing. For non-smp
>> architectures, I'm concerned about interacting with interrupt handlers. Some
>> drivers do use atomic_* operations.
>
> I'm not sure that actually answers my question. Why not smp_rmb()?
>
> David
I would assume because we want to waste time efficiently even on non-smp
architectures, rather than frying the CPU or draining the battery. Certain
looping execution patterns can cause the CPU to operate above thermal design
power. I have fans on my workstation that only ever come on when running
LINPACK, and that's generally memory bandwidth-bound. Just imagine what happens
when you're executing the same few non-serializing instructions in a tight loop
without ever stalling on memory fetches, or being scheduled out.
If there's another reason, I'd like to hear it too, because I'm just guessing here.
-- Chris
-
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