From: "Bryan O'Sullivan" <bos@pathscale.com>
To: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Define wc_wmb, a write barrier for PCI write combining
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:20:24 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1141154424.20227.11.camel@serpentine.pathscale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060228190354.GE24306@kvack.org>
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 14:03 -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> Memory barriers are not cheap. At least for the example you provided,
> it looks like things are overdone and performance is going to suck, so
> it needs to be avoided if at all possible.
There's more to it than that :-)
We added the memory barrier to *improve* performance, in addition to
helping correctness and portability. Without it, the CPU or north
bridge is free to hold onto the pending writes for a while; the exact
details of how long it will wait depend on the CPU and NB
implementation, but on AMD64 CPUs the delay is up to 16 cycles.
So if we just use wmb(), we incur a 16-cycle penalty on every packet we
send. This has a deleterious and measurable effect on performance.
<b
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-02-28 19:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-02-25 4:20 [PATCH] Define wc_wmb, a write barrier for PCI write combining Bryan O'Sullivan
2006-02-25 4:43 ` Andi Kleen
2006-02-25 7:34 ` Bryan O'Sullivan
2006-02-25 13:28 ` Andi Kleen
2006-02-25 17:20 ` Bryan O'Sullivan
2006-02-25 19:01 ` Bryan O'Sullivan
2006-02-28 17:44 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-02-28 17:50 ` Roland Dreier
2006-02-28 17:50 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-02-28 17:52 ` Bryan O'Sullivan
2006-02-28 17:59 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-02-25 14:28 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2006-02-25 17:11 ` Bryan O'Sullivan
2006-02-25 17:41 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2006-02-28 17:50 ` Bryan O'Sullivan
2006-02-28 17:58 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2006-02-28 18:20 ` Bryan O'Sullivan
2006-02-28 19:03 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2006-02-28 19:20 ` Bryan O'Sullivan [this message]
2006-02-28 19:33 ` Andi Kleen
2006-02-28 19:44 ` Bryan O'Sullivan
2006-03-01 19:20 ` Bryan O'Sullivan
2006-03-01 19:27 ` Andi Kleen
2006-03-01 19:43 ` Bryan O'Sullivan
2006-03-01 19:49 ` Andi Kleen
2006-03-01 20:05 ` Bryan O'Sullivan
2006-03-01 20:26 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2006-03-01 20:35 ` Bryan O'Sullivan
2006-02-28 19:34 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2006-02-28 18:22 ` Christopher Friesen
2006-02-28 10:01 ` Jes Sorensen
2006-02-28 15:42 ` Roland Dreier
2006-02-28 16:08 ` Jes Sorensen
2006-02-28 17:02 ` Roland Dreier
2006-02-28 17:13 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-02-28 17:20 ` Jes Sorensen
2006-03-01 8:16 ` Jeremy Higdon
2006-03-01 8:24 ` Jeremy Higdon
2006-02-28 17:11 ` Jesse Barnes
2006-02-28 17:57 ` Bryan O'Sullivan
2006-02-28 18:07 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2006-02-28 18:24 ` Christopher Friesen
2006-03-01 10:45 ` Jes Sorensen
2006-03-01 17:04 ` Roland Dreier
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=1141154424.20227.11.camel@serpentine.pathscale.com \
--to=bos@pathscale.com \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=bcrl@kvack.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox