Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:26:55 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | Re: Locking comment on shrink_caches() | From | "David S. Miller" <> |
| |
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 10:25:18 -0700 (PDT)
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > Your Athlons may handle exclusive cache line acquisition more > > efficiently (due to memory subsystem performance) but it still > > does cost something. > > On an exclusive line on Athlon a lock cycle is near enough free, its > just an ordering constraint. Since the line is in E state no other bus > master can hold a copy in cache so the atomicity is there. Ditto for newer > Intel processors You misunderstood the problem, I think: when the line moves from one CPU to the other (the exclusive state moves along with it), that is _expensive_.
Yes, this was my intended point. Please see my quoted text above and note the "exclusive cache line acquisition" with emphasis on the word "acquisition" meaning you don't have the cache line in E state yet.
Franks a lot, David S. Miller davem@redhat.com - 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/
|  |