Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:46:56 -0800 (PST) | From | Christoph Lameter <> | Subject | Re: Synchronizing Bit operations V2 |
| |
On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Friday 31 March 2006 18:22, Hans Boehm wrote: > > > My impression is that approach (1) tends not to stick, since it involves > > a substantial performance hit on architectures on which the fence is > > not implicitly included in atomic operations. Those include Itanium and > > PowerPC. > > At least the PPC people are eating the overhead because back when they > didn't they had a long string of subtle powerpc only bugs caused by that
PPC has barriers for both smb_mb_before/after cases. IMHO we should do the same for ia64 and not fuzz around.
> It's a stability/maintainability vs performance issue. I doubt the > performance advantage would be worth the additional work. I guess > with the engineering time you would need to spend getting all this right > you could do much more fruitful optimizations.
Agreed.
- 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/
| |