Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> writes:

> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:29:56 -0700
> "David Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Well that's exactly right. For threaded programs (and maybe even
>> > real-world non-threaded ones in general), you don't want to be
>> > even _reading_ global variables if you don't need to. Cache misses
>> > and cacheline bouncing could easily cause performance to completely
>> > tank in some cases while only gaining a cycle or two in
>> > microbenchmarks for doing these funny x86 predication things.
>> For some CPUs, replacing an conditional branch with a conditional
>> move is a *huge* win because it cannot be mispredicted.
> please name one...
> Hint: It's not one made by either Intel or AMD in the last 4 years...

ARM.  On ARM1136 (used in the Nokia N800) a mispredicted branch takes
5-7 cycles (a correctly predicted branch takes 0-4 cycles), while a
conditional load, store or arithmetic instruction always takes one

Måns Rullgård
[email protected]

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

[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]
  Powered by Linux