[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH][2.6] Completely out of line spinlocks / x86_64
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Andi Kleen wrote:

> I think the 50k number is wrong. I took a look at it and the big
> difference is only seen when you enable interrupts during spinning, which
> we didn't do before. If you compare it to the old implementation the
> difference is much less.

Yes agreed the increase wouldn't be of as high a magnitude if compared to
the original code, but it's still a decent saving.

> I don't really like the config option. Either it's a good idea
> then it should be done by default without option or it should not be done at all.
> Did you do any lock intensive benchmarks that could show a slowdown?

I went for a file IO type benchmark, the differences looked like
statistical noise, possibly the best bet would be to check for cache

> You should make this file assembly only.

Ok you're the second person to mention that, i don't have a problem with
switching to assembly only and dumping the exports in x8664_ksyms.c


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.037 / U:12.420 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site