Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Feb 2006 10:15:10 -0500 | From | Benjamin LaHaise <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Avoid calling down_read and down_write during startup |
| |
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 10:04:23AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > What do you think of the two suggestions in my previous message?
Even if the read version of the lock only touches a cacheline local to the cpu, you'd still have to use the lock prefix to allow for correctness when a writer comes along. It is not cacheline bouncing that worries me, it is serialising instructions and memory barriers as those hurt immensely when the data is in the cache. I've been looking at a lot of profiles on P4s of late, and every single locked instruction is painful as it means all of the memory ordering rules come into play. Neither suggestion addresses that overhead that has been introduced.
-ben -- "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry to interrupt, but the police are here and they've asked us to stop the party." Don't Email: <dont@kvack.org>. - 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/
| |