[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711260631200.21739@twinlark.arctic.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:50:25 -0800 (PST)
From: dean gaudet <dean@...tic.org>
To: Arne Georg Gleditsch <argggh@...phinics.no>
cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
kune@...ne-taler.de, johannes@...solutions.net
Subject: Re: [RFC] Documentation about unaligned memory access
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Arne Georg Gleditsch wrote:
> dean gaudet <dean@...tic.org> writes:
> > on AMD x86 pre-family 10h the boundary is 8 bytes, and on fam 10h it's 16
> > bytes. the penalty is a mere 3 cycles if an access crosses the specified
> > boundary.
>
> Worth noting though, is that atomic accesses that cross cache lines on
> an Opteron system is going to lock down the Hypertransport fabric for
> you during the operation -- which is obviously not so nice.
ooh awesome, i hadn't measured that before.
on a 2 node sockF / revF with a random pointer chase running on cpu 0 /
node 0 i see the avg load-to-load cache miss latency jump from 77ns to
109ns when i add an unaligned lock-intensive workload on one core of node
1. the worst i can get the pointer chase latency to is 273ns when i add
two threads on node 1 fighting over an unaligned lock.
on a 4 node (square) the worst case i can get seems to be an increase from
98ns with no antagonist to 385ns with 6 antagonists fighting over an
unaligned lock on the other 3 nodes.
cool.
-dean
-
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