Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: New filesystem for Linux | From | Andi Kleen <> | Date | 03 Nov 2006 00:41:39 +0100 |
| |
Mikulas Patocka <mikulas@artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> writes:
> new method to keep data consistent in case of crashes (instead > of journaling),
What is that method?
> * There is a rw semaphore that is locked for read for nearly all
Depending on the length of the critical section rw locks are often not faster than non rw locks because the read case has to bounce around the cache line of the lock anyways and they're actually a little more expensive. > * This leads to another observation --- on i386 locking a semaphore is > 2 instructions, on x86_64 it is a call to two nested functions. Has it
The second call should be a tail call, i.e. just a jump
The first call isn't needed on a non debug kernel, but doing the two unconditional jumps should be basically free on a modern OOO CPU.
The actual implementation is spinlock based vs atomic based for i386. This was because at some point nobody could benchmark a difference between the two and the spinlock based version is much easier to verify and to understand. If you can demonstrate a difference that could be reevaluated.
> some reason or was it just implementator's laziness? Given the fact > that locked instruction takes 16 ticks on Opteron (and can overlap > about 2 ticks with other instructions), it would make sense to have > optimized semaphores too.
In the last time we're going more for saved icache and better use of branch predictors (who are more happy with less branch locations to cache) I would expect the call/ret to be executed mostly in parallel with the other code anyways.
-Andi - 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/
| |