[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <491CD248.8030209@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:20:08 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...tmail.fm>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@...lshack.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, lguest@...abs.org,
jeremy@...source.com, Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>,
Mike Travis <travis@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC/RFB] x86_64, i386: interrupt dispatch changes
Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> I heard from an Intel hardware engineer that Nehalem has some
> really fancy logic in it to make locked instructions "free", that
> was nacked from earlier CPUs because it was too costly. So obviously
> it is taking a fair whack of transistors or power for them to do it.
> And even then it is far from free, but still seems to be one or two
> orders of magnitude more expensive than a regular instruction.
>
Last I heard it was still a dozen-ish cycles even on Nehalem.
>
> IMO, we shouldn't stop bothering about LOCK prefix in the forseeable
> future.
>
Even if a CPU came out *today* that had zero-cost locks we'd have to
worry about it for at least another 5-10 years. The good news is that
we're doing pretty good with it for now, but I don't believe in general
we can avoid the fact that improving LOCK performance helps everything
when you're dealing with large numbers of cores/threads.
-hpa
--
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