On Sul, 2005-09-04 at 11:01 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I would be surprised if it was a big loss... but I'm assuming
> a locked cmpxchg isn't outlandishly expensive. Basically:
>
> read_lock_irqsave(cacheline1);
> atomic_inc_return(cacheline2);
> read_unlock_irqrestore(cacheline1);
>
> Turns into
>
> atomic_cmpxchg();
>
> I'll do some microbenchmarks and get back to you. I'm quite
> interested now ;) What sort of AMDs did you have in mind,
Athlon or higher give very different atomic numbers to P4. If you are
losing the read_lock/unlock then the atomic_cmpxchg should be faster on
all I agree.
One question however - atomic_foo operations are not store barriers so
you might need mb() and friends for PPC ?
Alan
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |