From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Keir Fraser <keir@xensource.com>
Cc: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@lists.osdl.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] i386 - pte update optimizations
Date: 13 Apr 2007 14:27:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <p738xcw7942.fsf@bingen.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C2450C95.D3F6%keir@xensource.com>
Keir Fraser <keir@xensource.com> writes:
> On 13/4/07 03:24, "Zachary Amsden" <zach@vmware.com> wrote:
>
> >> You do know that P6 and higher don't do locked bus references as long
> >> as the value is in the cache, right?
> >
> > Yes. Even then, last time I clocked instructions, xchg was still slower
> > than read / write, although I could be misremembering. And it's not
> > totally clear that they will always be in cached state, however, and for
> > SMP, we still want to drop the implicit lock in cases where the
> > processor might not know they are cached exclusive, but we know there
> > are no other racing users. And there are plenty of old processors out
> > there to still make it worthwhile.
>
> LOCKed instruction suck really badly on the netburst microarchitecture (like
> factor of 10x, or not far off). I think it's probably because of their side
> effect of serialising memory accesses, causing horrible pipeline stalls.
Unfortunately they tend to be HyperThreaded usually (except for early ones
and Celerons) and need the LOCK anyways.
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-04-13 12:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-04-12 5:30 [PATCH 0/4] i386 - pte update optimizations Zachary Amsden
2007-04-13 1:25 ` H. Peter Anvin
2007-04-13 2:24 ` Zachary Amsden
2007-04-13 6:00 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-04-13 6:25 ` H. Peter Anvin
2007-04-13 9:31 ` Keir Fraser
2007-04-13 12:27 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2007-04-13 11:31 ` Keir Fraser
2007-04-13 15:34 ` H. Peter Anvin
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=p738xcw7942.fsf@bingen.suse.de \
--to=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=chrisw@sous-sol.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=keir@xensource.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.osdl.org \
--cc=zach@vmware.com \
/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).