From: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Page Fault Scalability patch V19 [1/4]: pte_cmpxchg and
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 23:01:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m1y8cwv2yl.fsf@muc.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050309201329.29721.1860.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> (Christoph Lameter's message of "Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:13:29 -0800 (PST)")
Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> writes:
>
> Atomic operations may be enabled in the kernel configuration on
> i386, ia64 and x86_64 if a suitable CPU is configured in SMP mode.
> Generic atomic definitions for ptep_xchg and ptep_cmpxchg
> have been provided based on the existing xchg() and cmpxchg() functions
> that already work atomically on many platforms. It is very
I'm curious - do you have any micro benchmarks on i386 or x86-64 systems
about the difference between spin_lock(ptl) access; spin_unlock(ptl);
and cmpxchg ?
cmpxchg can be quite slow, with bad luck it could be slower than
the spinlocks.
A P4 would be good to benchmark this because it seems to be the worst
case.
-Andi
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Page Fault Scalability patch V19 [1/4]: pte_cmpxchg and CONFIG_ATOMIC_TABLE_OPS
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:01:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m1y8cwv2yl.fsf@muc.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050309201329.29721.1860.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> (Christoph Lameter's message of "Wed, 9 Mar 2005 12:13:29 -0800 (PST)")
Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> writes:
>
> Atomic operations may be enabled in the kernel configuration on
> i386, ia64 and x86_64 if a suitable CPU is configured in SMP mode.
> Generic atomic definitions for ptep_xchg and ptep_cmpxchg
> have been provided based on the existing xchg() and cmpxchg() functions
> that already work atomically on many platforms. It is very
I'm curious - do you have any micro benchmarks on i386 or x86-64 systems
about the difference between spin_lock(ptl) access; spin_unlock(ptl);
and cmpxchg ?
cmpxchg can be quite slow, with bad luck it could be slower than
the spinlocks.
A P4 would be good to benchmark this because it seems to be the worst
case.
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-03-09 23:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-03-09 20:13 Page Fault Scalabilty patch V19 [0/4]: Overview Christoph Lameter
2005-03-09 20:13 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-03-09 20:13 ` Page Fault Scalability patch V19 [1/4]: pte_cmpxchg and CONFIG_ATOMIC_TABLE_OPS Christoph Lameter
2005-03-09 20:13 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-03-09 23:01 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2005-03-09 23:01 ` Andi Kleen
2005-03-09 23:06 ` Page Fault Scalability patch V19 [1/4]: pte_cmpxchg and Christoph Lameter
2005-03-09 23:06 ` Page Fault Scalability patch V19 [1/4]: pte_cmpxchg and CONFIG_ATOMIC_TABLE_OPS Christoph Lameter
2005-03-09 20:13 ` Page Fault Scalability patch V19 [2/4]: Abstract mm_struct counter operations Christoph Lameter
2005-03-09 20:13 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-03-09 20:13 ` Page Fault Scalability patch V19 [3/4]: Drop use of page_table_lock in handle_mm_fault Christoph Lameter
2005-03-09 20:13 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-03-09 20:13 ` Page Fault Scalability patch V19 [4/4]: Drop use of page_table_lock in do_anonymous_page Christoph Lameter
2005-03-09 20:13 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-03-09 22:56 ` Page Fault Scalability patch V19 [4/4]: Drop use of Andi Kleen
2005-03-09 22:56 ` Page Fault Scalability patch V19 [4/4]: Drop use of page_table_lock in do_anonymous_page Andi Kleen
2005-03-09 23:02 ` Page Fault Scalability patch V19 [4/4]: Drop use of page_table_lock Christoph Lameter
2005-03-09 23:02 ` Page Fault Scalability patch V19 [4/4]: Drop use of page_table_lock in do_anonymous_page Christoph Lameter
2005-03-09 23:14 ` Andi Kleen
2005-03-09 23:14 ` Andi Kleen
2005-03-09 23:17 ` Page Fault Scalability patch V19 [4/4]: Drop use of page_table_lock Christoph Lameter
2005-03-09 23:17 ` Page Fault Scalability patch V19 [4/4]: Drop use of page_table_lock in do_anonymous_page Christoph Lameter
2005-03-09 23:21 ` Andi Kleen
2005-03-09 23:21 ` Andi Kleen
2005-03-09 23:32 ` Page Fault Scalability patch V19 [4/4]: Drop use of page_table_lock Christoph Lameter
2005-03-09 23:32 ` Page Fault Scalability patch V19 [4/4]: Drop use of page_table_lock in do_anonymous_page Christoph Lameter
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=m1y8cwv2yl.fsf@muc.de \
--to=ak@muc.de \
--cc=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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.