[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5230939E.3050408@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 09:00:30 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] preempt_count rework -v2
On 09/10/2013 09:24 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>> also.. yuck on using "dec"
>> "dec" sucks, please use "sub foo ,1" instead
>
> That's a bigger instruction, largely due to the constant.
>
>> (dec sucks because of its broken flags behavior; it creates basically a
>> bubble in the pipeline)
>
> Intel could (and should) just fix that. It's "easy" enough - you just
> need to rename the carry flag as a separate register (and make sure
> that the conditional instructions that don't use it don't think they
> need it).
>
> In fact I thought Intel already did that on their large cores. Are you
> sure they still have trouble with inc/dec?
>
Big cores are fine, but Atom (and presumably Quark) might still suffer a
performance penalty.
-hpa
--
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