From: Jack Steiner <steiner@sgi.com>
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] don't udelay() in sn_mmiob
Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 14:31:45 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040529143145.GB15037@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200405261749.02254.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com>
On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 05:57:33PM -0700, Seth, Rohit wrote:
> Jack Steiner <> wrote on Friday, May 28, 2004 10:35 AM:
>
> > On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 12:28:55PM -0500, Jack Steiner wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 05:06:31PM -0400, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, May 27, 2004 4:46 pm, David Mosberger wrote:
> >>>> Wouldn't you want at least a cpu_relax() in that loop?
> >>>
> >>> That'll cause the CPU to switch to the other thread if it's SMT so
> >>> it won't spin waiting for the access to complete? If so, then yes.
> >>> Here's an updated patch.
> >
> > Whoops, I posted this response to the wrong mail. I was replying to
> > the question about whether the code should have a "cpu_relax()".
> >
> >>
> >> I didn't think the code would actually spin.
> >>
> >> sn_mmiob() is something like:
> >>
> >> 1: ld.acq r8=...
> >> ;;
> >> cmp.eq p8,p0=r8,r9
> >> (p8) br 1b
> >>
> >> The "load" is an uncached load. Won't the pipeline stall on the cmp
> >> waiting for data to arrive. I would not have expected that a
> >> cpu_relax() would have been needed here.
> >>
>
> You are right that pipeline will stall on the cmp instruction. But if
> you could put the hint@pause between ld and cmp instructions then that
> would allow current execution stream to give up resources to other
> execution stream (if applicable) for the time that data takes to come
> from main memory.
>
> -rohit
I thought the cpu would automatically switch on a cache miss & I assumed that
a switch would occur on a UC ref. Or am I thinking of a different processor?
If you follow the logic that is cpu_relax is useful in the sn_mmiob()
function, shouldn't there be a cpu_relax() after EVERY uncached load
that is immediately (or closely) followed by an instruction that
consumes the data.
What are the conditions that cause a switch between execution streams?
--
Thanks
Jack Steiner (steiner@sgi.com) 651-683-5302
Principal Engineer SGI - Silicon Graphics, Inc.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-29 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-05-26 21:49 [PATCH] don't udelay() in sn_mmiob Jesse Barnes
2004-05-27 20:46 ` David Mosberger
2004-05-27 21:06 ` Jesse Barnes
2004-05-27 21:29 ` David Mosberger
2004-05-28 17:28 ` Jack Steiner
2004-05-28 17:35 ` Jack Steiner
2004-05-29 0:57 ` Seth, Rohit
2004-05-29 14:31 ` Jack Steiner [this message]
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=20040529143145.GB15037@sgi.com \
--to=steiner@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox