[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Semaphore assembly-code bug

    On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:
    > So can you _please_ just admit that you were wrong? On a P4, the pop/pop
    > is the same cost as lea/pop, and on a Pentium M the pop/pop is faster,
    > according to this test. Your contention that "pop" has to be slower than
    > "lea" is WRONG.

    Btw, I'd like to emphasize "this test". Modern OoO CPU's are complex
    animals. They have pipeline quirks etc that just means that things depend
    on alignment, on code around it, and on register usage patterns of the
    instructions that you test _and_ the instructions around those
    instructions. So take any proof with a pinch of salt, because there are
    bound to be other circumstances where factors around the code just change
    the assumptions.

    In short, any time you're looking at single cycle timings, you should be
    very aware of the fact that your measurements are suspect. The best way to
    avoid most of the problem is to never try to measure single cycles.
    Measure performance on a program, not on a single instruction.

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

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.018 / U:6.664 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site