[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1108051831090.13276@router.home>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 18:32:49 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [x86] Fix prefetch instruction
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/05/2011 02:10 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >>
> >> Have you done any performance analysis on this versus the null case? I
> >> know there are some workloads where it helps, but if it hurts as many as
> >> it helps...
> >
> > No I have not. prefetch IMHO means that the cacheline is fetched early so
> > that the cacheline is fully available like any other to the code.
> > prefetchnta does fetch the cacheline too but its not treated like the other cacheline but
> > preferably thrown out again. Its a "streamfetch" designed for apps that
> > scan over large amounts of memory and want to avoid cache pollution.
> >
> > This is surprising to the end user as far as I can tell.
> >
>
> Right. However, Linus has brought up the hypothesis that prefetch might
> actually be a net loss on x86, because current x86 processors are
> generally doing a good job with prefetching in hardware. Directed
> prefetches can thus be a net minus.
This kinid of prefetch is a minus because the cache is evicted early. It
was prefetched with a special hint so its likely very important. That does
not seem to be very consistent and may cause regressions. Changing it to a
full prefetch would make the important cacheline stay longer in the cache.
--
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