[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4859AA47.2020903@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:37:27 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: benh@...nel.crashing.org,
xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
kvm-devel <kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, x86@...nel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1 of 4] mm: add a ptep_modify_prot transaction abstraction
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> Along the lines of:
>>
>
> Hell no. There's a reason we have a special set_wrprotect() thing. We can
> do it more efficiently on native hardware by just clearing the bit
> atomically. No need to do the cmpxchg games.
>
It's not cmpxchg, just xchg.
In other words, is:
lock btr $_PAGE_BIT_RW, (%rbx)
much cheaper than
mov $0, %rax
xchg %rax, (%rbx)
and $~_PAGE_RW, %rax
mov %rax, (%rbx)
?
It's the same number of locked RMW operations, so aside from being a few
instructions longer, I think it would be much the same.
I guess the correct answer is "lmbench".
J
--
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