[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090708071831.GB3148@ami.dom.local>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:18:31 +0200
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
fbl@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com, davem@...hat.com,
htejun@...il.com, davidel@...ilserver.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 2/2] memory barrier: adding smp_mb__after_lock
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 12:34:32AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
...
> Because adding smp_mb__after_lock() is _only_ useful on x86. Most other
> architectures _will_ suffer from a performance degradation, unless you
> implement the __read_lock_noacquire.
It's completely backwards: processor barriers are just expected to
add a performance degradation. That's like:
x86 developer:
OK, we need to add a barrier here: even x86 might need this.
Alpha developer:
Right, than we need this even more.
x86 developer:
But wait, we can avoid it using a dummy after some locks, because they
have such a barrier already.
Alpha developer:
Then it's not OK: it's _only_ useful on x86; our architecture _will_
suffer from a performance degradation...
Cheers,
Jarek P.
--
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