Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:33:09 -0700 (PDT) | | From | Christoph Lameter <> | | Subject | Re: light weight counters: race free through local_t? |
| |
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, Zoltan Menyhart wrote:
> > On IA64 we we would trade an interrupt disable/ load / add / store > > /interrupt enable against one fetchadd instruction with this patch. How > > bad/good a trade is that? > > On one hand, switching to local counters can be a good idea if they are not > evicted from the caches by the usual NRU/LRU cache replacement... > > On the other hand, I do not think the ia64's fetchadd instruction is > expensive. > If your data is in L2, then it takes 11 clock cycles. > > I do not think the counters have got much chance to stay in L1. > Anyway, L1 is write through, you'll need to copy the updated value > back into L2. > As the shortest L2 access takes 5 clock cycles... > You need 2 of them. (Assuming a counter is always in L2.) > And add interrupt disable/enable time...
Could you do a clock cycle comparision of an
atomic_inc(__get_per_cpu(var)) (the fallback of local_t on ia64)
vs.
local_irq_save(flags) __get_per_cpu(var)++ local_irq_restore(flags) (ZVC like implementation)
vs.
get_per_cpu(var)++ put_cpu() (current light weight counters) - 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/
|  |