Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 26 Sep 2001 14:01:49 -0400 | From | Benjamin LaHaise <> | Subject | Re: Locking comment on shrink_caches() |
| |
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 10:44:14AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Do you have an actual SMP Athlon to test? I'd love to see if that "locked > add" thing is really SMP-safe - it may be that it's the old "AMD turned > off the 'lock' prefix synchronization because it doesn't matter in UP". > They used to have a bit to do that..
Same, my dual reports:
[bcrl@toomuch ~]$ ./a.out nothing: 11 cycles locked add: 11 cycles cpuid: 68 cycles
Which is pretty good.
> That said, it _can_ be real even on SMP. There's no reason why a memory > barrier would have to be as heavy as it is on some machines (even the P4 > looks positively _fast_ compared to most older machines that did memory > barriers on the bus and took hundreds of much slower cycles to do it).
I had discussions with a few people from intel about the p4 having much improved locking performance, including the ability to speculatively execute locked instructions. How much of that is enabled in the current cores is another question entirely (gotta love microcode patches).
-ben - 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/
|  |