On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 06:42:10PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
...
> They should also improve performance in heavily contended case due to
> the nature of how they spin, but I know that's not something you want
> to hear about. And theoretically there should be no reason why xadd is
> any slower than dec and look at the status flags, should there? I never
> implementedit in optimised assembly to test though...
...
BTW, could you explain why the below diagnose doesn't relate
to your solution?
On 06/21/2007 12:08 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
...
> So it seems the problem was that if a core kept _truly_ modifying a
> cacheline via atomics in a high enough frequency, it could artificially
> starve the other core. (which would keep waiting for the cacheline to be
> released one day, and which kept the first core from ever making any
> progress) To me that looks like a real problem on the hardware side -
> shouldnt cacheline ownership be arbitrated a bit better than that?
>
Thanks & regards,
Jarek P.
-
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]
