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 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).