From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] powerpc: Use lwsync for acquire barrier if CPU supports it
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:41:53 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100217104153.GA7952@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100217094314.GC24270@kryten>
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 08:43:14PM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> > Ah, good to see this one come back. I also tested tbench over localhost
> > btw which actually did show some speedup on the G5.
> >
> > BTW. this was the last thing left:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/msg29738.html
> >
> > Don't know if you took a look at that again, but maybe it's worth
> > looking at. Hmm, we do actually seem to be growing number of smp_mb*
> > calls in core kernel too.
>
> Interesting idea! I do worry we will get a late night visit from the
> architecture police. From memory they want the complete larx, stcwx, bne,
> isync sequence to guarantee an acquire barrier.
Yes I suppose the branch can be executed "non speculatively" before the
lwsync is completed. Wheras the larx/stcwx will have to complete before
the branch outcome can be known. I suppose probably not worthwhile
avoiding the full IO sync by adding yet more crap to make this work.
Thanks for putting my mind to rest though :)
I'd still be interested to know how expensive the full sync is when you
have a lot of IOs in flight.
Question, are you going to do the hint and isync->lwsync thing for
userspace as well? Too bad the kernel doesn't export synchronisation
primitives to userspace...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-17 10:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-10 10:57 [PATCH 1/6] powerpc: Use lwarx hint in spinlocks Anton Blanchard
2010-02-10 11:02 ` [PATCH 2/6] powerpc: Use lwarx/ldarx hint in bit locks Anton Blanchard
2010-02-10 11:03 ` [PATCH 3/6] powerpc: Convert open coded native hashtable bit lock Anton Blanchard
2010-02-10 11:04 ` [PATCH 4/6] powerpc: Rename LWSYNC_ON_SMP to PPC_RELEASE_BARRIER, ISYNC_ON_SMP to PPC_ACQUIRE_BARRIER Anton Blanchard
2010-02-10 11:07 ` [PATCH 5/6] powerpc: Fix lwsync patching code on 64bit Anton Blanchard
2010-02-10 11:10 ` [PATCH 6/6] powerpc: Use lwsync for acquire barrier if CPU supports it Anton Blanchard
2010-02-11 7:09 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-17 9:43 ` Anton Blanchard
2010-02-17 10:41 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2010-02-17 12:12 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-02-16 4:22 ` Olof Johansson
2010-02-16 4:19 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-02-16 6:07 ` Olof Johansson
2010-03-19 1:08 ` [PATCH 4/6] powerpc: Rename LWSYNC_ON_SMP to PPC_RELEASE_BARRIER, ISYNC_ON_SMP to PPC_ACQUIRE_BARRIER Nick Piggin
2010-03-19 1:36 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-02-11 6:56 ` [PATCH 1/6] powerpc: Use lwarx hint in spinlocks Nick Piggin
2010-02-17 9:37 ` Anton Blanchard
2010-02-17 10:22 ` Nick Piggin
2010-02-16 4:16 ` Olof Johansson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100217104153.GA7952@laptop \
--to=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.