[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49066840.2070408@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 09:17:52 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/tracing/markers] new probes manager
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org> wrote:
>>> Do you have performance measurements for this ? On x86 it's a nop,
>>> AFAIK.
>> My statement above is inexact : x86_64 uses lfence for rmb(). But
>> numbers would still be welcome.
>
> yes, the statement that rmb() is very expensive looks dubious. It is
> absolutely cheap everywhere.
>
> Ingo
>
>
>
On x86 it's _NOT_ a nop.
i386
#define rmb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "lfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM2)
uses the "lock" prefix.
x86_64
#define rmb() asm volatile("lfence":::"memory")
uses the "lfence"
these two are harm for cache. rmb is exactly a expensive operator.
rmb() is indeed cheaper than any other atomic-operator(atomic, spin_lock .. etc)
everywhere. but In a fast path, avoiding rmb() is worthy.
Thanx, Lai
--
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