[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081113182937.GZ3810@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:29:37 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tracing/function-return-tracer: Make the function return tracer lockless
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:32:23PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > > So the answer to this is:
> > >
> > > i = index++;
> > > barrier();
> > > write to index i (not index);
> >
> > That was my first thought when I wrote the original email,
> > but the disadvantage is that barrier() is a big hammer
> > that flushes everything and can make the code much worse.
> > That is why I suggested local_add_return() instead.
>
> barrier() is a compiler barrier, does nothing with the caches, and is
> quite cheap. We only need a compiler barrier because we are only
I did not refer to CPU caches, but the compiler's register allocation
[ok if you want the registers are the "level 0 cache"]. A memory barrier
all messes it up. That is why it is better to only clobber specific
memory regions, which is what local_* does.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com
--
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