[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BF951BE.1010402@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 19:03:10 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
qemu-devel@...gnu.org
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] virtio: put last seen used index into
ring itself
On 05/23/2010 06:51 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>> So locked version seems to be faster than unlocked,
>>> and share/unshare not to matter?
>>>
>>>
>> May be due to the processor using the LOCK operation as a hint to
>> reserve the cacheline for a bit.
>>
> Maybe we should use atomics on index then?
>
This should only be helpful if you access the cacheline several times in
a row. That's not the case in virtio (or here).
I think the problem is that LOCKSHARE and SHARE are not symmetric, so
they can't be directly compared.
> OK, after adding mb in code patch will be sent separately,
> the test works for my workstation. locked is still fastest,
> unshared sometimes shows wins and sometimes loses over shared.
>
> [root@...19 ~]# ./cachebounce share 0 1
> CPU 0: share cacheline: 6638521 usec
> CPU 1: share cacheline: 6638478 usec
>
66 ns? nice.
> [root@...19 ~]# ./cachebounce share 0 2
> CPU 0: share cacheline: 14529198 usec
> CPU 2: share cacheline: 14529156 usec
>
140 ns, not too bad. I hope I'm not misinterpreting the results.
--
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