From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Luca Barbieri <luca@luca-barbieri.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
mingo@elte.hu, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/10] x86-32: use SSE for atomic64_read/set if available
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:24:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B7D5BB4.4000307@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ff13bc9a1002180227j70e0748ag49d88c3034e3900d@mail.gmail.com>
On 02/18/2010 02:27 AM, Luca Barbieri wrote:
>> CR changes are slow and synchronize the CPU. The later is always slow.
>>
>> It sounds like you didn't time it?
> I didn't, because I think it strongly depends on the microarchitecture
> and I don't have a comprehensive set of machines to test on, so it
> would just be a single data point.
>
> The lock prefix on cmpxchg8b is also serializing so it might be as bad.
No. LOCK isn't serializing in the same way CRx writes are.
> Anyway, if we use this, we should keep TS cleared in kernel mode and
> lazily restore it on return to userspace.
> This would make clts/stts performance mostly moot.
This is what kernel_fpu_begin/kernel_fpu_end is all about. We
definitely cannot leave TS cleared without the user space CPU state
moved to its home location, or we have yet another complicated state to
worry about.
I really feel that without a *strong* use case for this, there is
absolutely no point.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-18 15:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-17 11:42 [PATCH 0/10] x86-32: improve atomic64_t functions Luca Barbieri
2010-02-17 11:42 ` [PATCH 01/10] x86: add support for multiple choice alternatives Luca Barbieri
2010-02-17 12:47 ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-18 19:46 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-17 11:42 ` [PATCH 02/10] x86: add support for relative CALL and JMP in alternatives Luca Barbieri
2010-02-18 19:40 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-18 23:38 ` Luca Barbieri
2010-02-18 23:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-19 14:27 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2010-02-17 11:42 ` [PATCH 03/10] x86: add support for lock prefix " Luca Barbieri
2010-02-17 11:42 ` [PATCH 04/10] x86-32: allow UP/SMP lock replacement in cmpxchg64 Luca Barbieri
2010-02-17 11:42 ` [PATCH 05/10] lib: add self-test for atomic64_t Luca Barbieri
2010-02-17 11:42 ` [PATCH 06/10] x86-32: rewrite 32-bit atomic64 functions in assembly Luca Barbieri
2010-02-17 11:42 ` [PATCH 07/10] lib: move generic atomic64 to atomic64-impl.h Luca Barbieri
2010-02-17 11:42 ` [PATCH 08/10] x86-32: support atomic64_t on 386/486 UP/SMP Luca Barbieri
2010-02-18 10:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-18 10:58 ` Luca Barbieri
2010-02-18 15:20 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-17 11:42 ` [PATCH 09/10] x86-32: use SSE for atomic64_read/set if available Luca Barbieri
2010-02-17 22:39 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-18 0:41 ` Luca Barbieri
2010-02-18 0:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-18 9:56 ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-18 10:07 ` Luca Barbieri
2010-02-18 8:23 ` Andi Kleen
2010-02-18 9:53 ` Luca Barbieri
2010-02-18 9:56 ` Luca Barbieri
2010-02-18 10:11 ` Andi Kleen
2010-02-18 10:27 ` Luca Barbieri
2010-02-18 15:24 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2010-02-18 18:14 ` Luca Barbieri
2010-02-18 18:28 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-18 18:42 ` Luca Barbieri
2010-02-18 19:07 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-18 20:26 ` Andi Kleen
2010-02-18 16:52 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-18 18:49 ` Luca Barbieri
2010-02-18 19:06 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-18 19:43 ` Luca Barbieri
2010-02-18 19:45 ` Yuhong Bao
2010-02-18 10:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-18 10:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-18 10:50 ` Luca Barbieri
2010-02-18 11:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-18 12:29 ` Luca Barbieri
2010-02-18 12:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-02-18 13:45 ` Luca Barbieri
2010-02-17 11:42 ` [PATCH 10/10] x86-32: panic on !CX8 && XMM Luca Barbieri
2010-02-17 22:38 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-17 23:00 ` Yuhong Bao
2010-02-17 23:41 ` H. Peter Anvin
2010-02-18 1:13 ` Yuhong Bao
2010-02-25 20:24 ` Yuhong Bao
2010-02-18 0:46 ` Luca Barbieri
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=4B7D5BB4.4000307@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luca@luca-barbieri.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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.