lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: spin_unlock optimization(i386)
Date
>>>>> "David" == David Wragg <dpw@doc.ic.ac.uk> writes:
> A couple of weeks ago, I went to a presentation about mutex
> optimisations. It included measurements of the cost of a mutex lock
> followed by unlock on Alpha, both with the usual
> load-locked/store-conditional with memory barrier sequence, and with
> the mutex code modified to use a load/store and no memory barriers
> sequence. I don't remember the exact figures, but:

How did they manage to write a l/s only mutex on an Alpha ?
Or was it UP only ?
The memory consistency of Alpha is very weak and requires (AFAIK)
a memory barrier to implement a mutex)


Stefan

PS: I do tend to think that a strong sequential consistency (even stronger
than x86's) is the way to go performancewise. Memory barriers are
just too expensive. Isn't MIPS sequentially consistent ?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:55    [W:0.672 / U:0.176 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site