On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 August 2006 17:56, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, David Howells wrote:
> >
> > > Because i386 (and x86_64) can do better by using XADDL/XADDQ.
> >
> > And Ia64 would like to use fetchadd....
>
> This might be a dumb question, but I would expect even on altix
> with lots of parallel faulting threads rwsem performance be basically
> limited by aquiring the cache line and releasing it later to another CPU.
Correct. However, a cmpxchg may have to acquire that cacheline multiple
times in a highly contented situation. A fetchadd acquires the cacheline
only once.
> Do you really think it will make much difference what particular atomic
> operation is used? The basic cost of sending the cache line over the
> interconnect should be all the same, no? And once the cache line is local
> it should be reasonably fast either way.
We have long tuned that portion of the code and therefore we are
skeptical of changes. But if we cannot measure a difference to a
generic implemenentation then it would be okay.
-
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]
