[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150519124333.GC3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 14:43:33 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sarbojit Ganguly <ganguly.s@...sung.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Waiman.Long@...com" <Waiman.Long@...com>,
"raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com"
<raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
SHARAN ALLUR <sharan.allur@...sung.com>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"vikram.m@...sung.com" <vikram.m@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] arm: Add for atomic half word exchange
On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:20:13AM +0000, Sarbojit Ganguly wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 May 2015 09:39:33 Sarbojit Ganguly wrote:
> > Since 16 bit half word exchange was not there and MCS based
> > qspinlock by Waiman's xchg_tail() requires an atomic exchange on a
> > half word, here is a small modification to __xchg() code.
Can you actually see a performance improvement with the qspinlock code
on ARM ?
The real improvements on x86 were on NUMA systems; although there were
real improvements on light loads as well.
Note that ARM (or any load-store arch) could get rid of all the cmpxchg
loops in that code. Although I suppose we replaced the most common ones
with these unconditional atomics already -- like that xchg16 -- so
implementing those with ll/sc, as you did, should be near optimal.
--
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