[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:32:14 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Stephan Diestelhorst <stephan.diestelhorst@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 00/10] [PATCH RFC V2] Paravirtualized
ticketlocks
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> On 10/06/2011 10:40 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > However, it looks like locked xadd is also has better performance: on
> > my Sandybridge laptop (2 cores, 4 threads), the add+mfence is 20% slower
> > than locked xadd, so that pretty much settles it unless you think
> > there'd be a dramatic difference on an AMD system.
>
> Konrad measures add+mfence is about 65% slower on AMD Phenom as well.
xadd also results in smaller/tighter code, right?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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