[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801031355.44694.ak@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 13:55:44 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [5/20] x86: Introduce nsec_barrier()
On Thursday 03 January 2008 11:47:54 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> wrote:
>
> > nsec_barrier() is a new barrier primitive that stops RDTSC speculation
> > to avoid races with timer interrupts on other CPUs.
> >
> > Add it to all architectures. Except for x86 it is a nop right now. I
> > only tested x86, but it's a very simple change.
> >
> > On x86 it expands either to LFENCE (for Intel CPUs) or MFENCE (for AMD
> > CPUs) which stops RDTSC on all currently known microarchitectures that
> > implement SSE. On CPUs without SSE there is generally no RDTSC
> > speculation.
>
> i've picked up your rdtsc patches into x86.git but have simplified it:
> there's no nsec_barrier() anymore - rdtsc() is always synchronous.
> MFENCE/LFENCE is fast enough. Open-coding such barriers almost always
> leads to needless trouble. Please check the next x86.git tree.
That's most likely wrong unless you added two barriers -- the barriers
are strictly need to be before and after RDTSC.
I still think having the open barrier is the better approach here.
It's also useful for performance measurements because it allows
a cheap way to measure a specific region with RDTSC
-Andi
--
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