linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.

  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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).