[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081108104116.48bd26e6@infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 10:41:16 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [git pull] scheduler updates
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 10:28:21 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Ingo Molnar (2):
> > sched: improve sched_clock() performance
> > sched: optimize sched_clock() a bit
>
> Btw, why do we do that _idiotic_ rdtsc_barrier() AT ALL?
>
> No sane user can possibly want it. If you do 'rdtsc', there's nothing
> you can do about a few cycles difference due to OoO _anyway_. Adding
> barriers is entirely meaningless - it's not going to make the return
> value mean anything else.
>
> Can we please just remove that idiocy? Or can somebody give a _sane_
> argument for it?
historically it was for early AMD cpus (K7, not sure if early K8 did
this) where 2 consecutive rdtsc's in the same codestream would get
reordered compared to eachother, so you could observe the tsc go
backwards...
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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