[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1357220117.21409.24539.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 05:35:17 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
therbert@...gle.com, walken@...gle.com, jeremy@...p.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, aquini@...hat.com, lwoodman@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3 -v2] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay
factor
On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 08:24 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 09:05 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> > > How much bus traffic do monitor/mwait cause behind the scenes?
> >
> > I would suppose that this just snoops the bus for writes, but the
> > amount of bus traffic involved in this isn't explicitly documented.
> >
> > One downside of course is that unless a spin lock is made occupy
> > exactly a cache line, false wakeups are possible.
>
> And that would probably be very likely, as the whole purpose of Rik's
> patches was to lower cache stalls due to other CPUs pounding on spin
> locks that share the cache line of what is being protected (and
> modified).
A monitor/mwait would be an option only if using MCS (or K42 variant)
locks, where each cpu would wait on a private and dedicated cache line.
--
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