From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: benh@kernel.crashing.org
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] powerpc: optimise smp_wmb
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 00:07:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b88b9efaffd17fa5b53f1d8070a6844c@kernel.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1211402685.8297.247.camel@pasglop>
> The main question is do we care if the downgrade to sync on power3
> hurts
> performances (and does it ?) and what do we do for 32 bits as
> currently,
> no 32 bits implementation has lwsync afaik (though that might not be
> true for long).
Some time ago, I benchmarked (*) a loop of "stw;sync" vs. "stw;eieio"
on a 750 (yeah, great micro-benchmark, heh); and the sync version
was a factor ~100 slower.
> Also, we don't, I think, have verified that they all properly ignore
> the
> added bit and behave as sync rather than program checking..
The architecture books don't have a programming note about this
(like they do in similar cases), so either a) it works fine on
every implementation; or b) someone forgot to add such a note.
We shouldn't use lwsync on 32-bit (it's an awful performance hit
on "classic" cpus, and who knows what it does on embedded cpus
(bookE *shudder*)). For POWER3 and *star, i.e., all 64-bit? Perhaps
it'll be okay there, but if as you suggest some 32-bit CPUs will add
proper lwsync support soonish, maybe a feature fixup or some such is
in order.
Segher
(*) Not on purpose.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-21 22:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-21 14:10 [patch 1/2] powerpc: rmb fix Nick Piggin
2008-05-21 14:12 ` [patch 2/2] powerpc: optimise smp_wmb Nick Piggin
2008-05-21 15:26 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-05-21 15:34 ` Nick Piggin
2008-05-21 15:43 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-05-21 15:47 ` Nick Piggin
2008-05-21 16:02 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-05-21 20:51 ` Segher Boessenkool
2008-05-21 16:01 ` Nick Piggin
2008-05-21 20:12 ` Segher Boessenkool
2008-05-21 20:44 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-05-21 22:07 ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2008-05-22 0:30 ` Nick Piggin
2008-05-21 20:16 ` Segher Boessenkool
2008-05-21 15:27 ` [patch 1/2] powerpc: rmb fix Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-05-21 15:32 ` Nick Piggin
2008-05-21 15:43 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2008-05-23 2:14 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-05-23 4:40 ` Nick Piggin
2008-05-23 4:53 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-05-23 5:48 ` Nick Piggin
2008-05-23 6:40 ` Paul Mackerras
2008-05-26 1:38 ` Nick Piggin
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=b88b9efaffd17fa5b53f1d8070a6844c@kernel.crashing.org \
--to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=paulus@samba.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.