[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140418083342.GA11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:33:42 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@...il.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 06/19] qspinlock: prolong the stay in the pending bit
path
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:46:04PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> BTW, I didn't test out your atomic_test_and_set() change. Did it provide a
> noticeable performance benefit when compared with cmpxchg()?
I've not tested that I think. I had a hard time showing that cmpxchg
loops were slower, but once I did, I simply replaced all cmpxchg loops
with unconditional ops where possible.
The machine that was big enough to show it lived in a lab half way
around the world and using it was a right pain in the ass, so I didn't
use it more than I absolutely had to.
--
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