[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A34F564.2010500@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:04:36 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib: Provide generic atomic64_t implementation
Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Avi Kivity writes:
>
>
>> An alternative implementation using 64-bit cmpxchg will recover most of
>> the costs of hashed spinlocks. I assume most serious 32-bit
>> architectures have them?
>>
>
> Have a 64-bit cmpxchg, you mean? x86 is the only one I know of, and
> it already has an atomic64_t implementation using cmpxchg8b (or
> whatever it's called).
>
Yes (and it is cmpxchg8b). I'm surprised powerpc doesn't have DCAS support.
> My thinking is that the 32-bit non-x86 architectures will be mostly
> UP, so the overhead is just an interrupt enable/restore. Those that
> are SMP I would expect to be small SMP -- mostly just 2 cpus and maybe
> a few 4-way systems.
>
The new Nehalems provide 8 logical threads in a single socket. All
those threads share a cache, and they have cmpxchg8b anyway, so this
won't matter.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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