On Saturday 07 January 2006 04:19, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Saturday 07 January 2006 03:52, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> >
> >>No. On many load/store architectures there is no good way to do local_t,
> >>so something like ppc32 or ia64 just uses all atomic operations for
> >
> >
> > well, they're just broken and need to be fixed to not do that.
> >
>
> How?
If anything use the 3x duplicated data setup, not atomic operations.
>
> > Also I bet with some tricks a seqlock like setup could be made to work.
> >
>
> I asked you how before. If you can come up with a way then it indeed
> might be a good solution...
I'll try to work something up.
> The problem I see with seqlock is that it
> is only fast in the read path. That path is not the issue here.
The common case - not getting interrupted would be fast.
> >
> >>local_t, and ppc64 uses 3 counters per-cpu thus tripling the cache
> >>footprint.
> >
> >
> > and ppc64 has big caches so this also shouldn't be a problem.
> >
>
> Well it is even less of a problem for them now, by about 1/3.
>
> Performance-wise there is really no benefit for even i386 or x86-64
> to move to local_t now either so I don't see what the fuss is about.
Actually P4 doesn't like CLI/STI. For AMD and P-M it's not that much an issue,
but NetBurst really doesn't like it.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
