lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: SMP syncronization on AMD processors (broken?)
From
Date
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 17:32 +0400, Andrey Savochkin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 03:19:07PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 17:05 +0400, Kirill Korotaev wrote:
> > > Hello Linus, Andrew and others,
> > >
> > > Please help with a not simple question about spin_lock/spin_unlock on
> > > SMP archs. The question is whether concurrent spin_lock()'s should
> > > acquire it in more or less "fair" fashinon or one of CPUs can starve any
> > > arbitrary time while others do reacquire it in a loop.
> >
> > spinlocks are designed to not be fair. or rather are allowed to not be.
> > If you want them to be fair on x86 you need at minimum to put a
> > cpu_relax() in your busy loop...
>
> The question was raised exactly because cpu_relax() doesn't help on these AMD
> CPUs.
>
> Some Pentiums do more than expected from them, and the programs works in a
> very fair manner even without cpu_relax(), so the question boils down to
> whether there are some new AMD rules how to write such loops, is it a defect
> of the CPU, or if we are missing something else.

the rule basically is "don't write such a loop" though; this is only the
beginning; because if you have two such things on separate cores of a
dual core cpu you for sure starve anything outside of that core just the
same. Eg it goes one level up as well.

There is no spin_lock_yield() currently and until there is this is just
a code pattern you should avoid.


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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-10-06 16:24    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site