lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Locking comment on shrink_caches()
From
   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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [W:0.215 / U:1.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site