[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151103013625.GD1707@linux-uzut.site>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:36:25 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86,asm: Re-work smp_store_mb()
On Mon, 02 Nov 2015, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> wrote:
>>
>> So I ran some experiments on an IvyBridge (2.8GHz) and the cost of XCHG is
>> constantly cheaper (by at least half the latency) than MFENCE. While there
>> was a decent amount of variation, this difference remained rather constant.
>
>Mind testing "lock addq $0,0(%rsp)" instead of mfence? That's what we
>use on old cpu's without one (ie 32-bit).
I'm getting results very close to xchg.
>I'm not actually convinced that mfence is necessarily a good idea. I
>could easily see it being microcode, for example.
Interesting.
>
>At least on my Haswell, the "lock addq" is pretty much exactly half
>the cost of "mfence".
Ok, his coincides with my results on IvB.
--
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