linux-kernel - x86 - cpu_relax - why nop vs. pause?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <4B6EF853.9090704@majjas.com>
Date:	Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:28:51 -0500
From:	Michael Breuer <mbreuer@...jas.com>
To:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: x86 - cpu_relax - why nop vs. pause?

I did search and noticed some old discussions. Looking at both Intel and 
AMD documentation, it would seem that PAUSE is the preferred instruction 
within a spin lock. Further, both Intel and AMD specifications state 
that the instruction is backward compatible with older x86 processors.

For fun, I changed nop to pause on my core i7 920 (smt enabled) and I'm 
seeing about a 5-10% performance improvement on 2.6.33 rc7. Perf top 
shows time spent in spin_lock under load drops from an average of around 
35% to about 25%.

Thoughts?
--
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/