[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080814173021.GA4697@Krystal>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:30:21 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86 alternatives : fix LOCK_PREFIX race with
preemptible kernel and CPU hotplug
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge (jeremy@...p.org) wrote:
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> * H. Peter Anvin (hpa@...or.com) wrote:
>>
>>> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can't argue about the benefit of using VM CPU pinning to manage
>>>> resources because I don't use it myself, but I ran some tests out of
>>>> curiosity to find if uncontended locks were that cheap, and it turns out
>>>> they aren't. Here are the results :
>>>> Xeon 2.0GHz
>>>> Summary
>>>> make -j1 kernel/ 33.94 +/- 0.07 34.91 +/- 0.27 2.8 %
>>>> hackbench 50 2.99 +/- 0.01 3.74 +/- 0.01 25.1 %
>>>> 1 CPU, replace smp lock prefixes with DS segment selector prefixes
>>>> 1 CPU, noreplace-smp
>>>>
>>> For reference, could you also compare replace smp lock with NOPs?
>>>
>>> -hpa
>>>
>>
>> Sure, here are the updated tables. Basically, they show no significant
>> difference between the NOP and the DS segment selector prefix
>> approaches.
>>
>
> BTW, are you changing the initial prefix to DS too? Ie, are you doing a
> nop->lock->ds transition, or ds->lock->ds?
>
> J
Yeah, I thought about this case yesterday, good thing you ask.
include/asm-x86/alternative.h defines LOCK_PREFIX as :
#define LOCK_PREFIX \
".section .smp_locks,\"a\"\n" \
_ASM_ALIGN "\n" \
_ASM_PTR "661f\n" /* address */ \
".previous\n" \
"661:\n\tlock; "
So we have the locked instructions built into the kernel, not the nop'd
one. Therefore, the only transition I am doing for my benchmarks is :
lock->ds
but I tried to switch back to SMP and it worked fine.
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
--
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