[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49A9E7A3.4050102@zytor.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:40:51 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...e.hu,
nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, sqazi@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [patch] x86, mm: pass in 'total' to __copy_from_user_*nocache()
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> the reason that movntq and co are faster is because you avoid the
> write-allocate behavior of the caches....
>
> the cache polluting part of it I find hard to buy for general use (as
> this discussion shows)... that will be extremely hard to measure as
> a real huge thing, while the WA part is like a 1.5x to 2x thing.
>
Note that hardware *can* (which is not the same thing as hardware
*will*) elide the write-allocate behavior. We did that at Transmeta for
rep movs and certain other instructions which provably filled in entire
cache lines. I haven't investigated if newer Intel CPUs do that in the
"fast rep movs" case.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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