[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [BUG] long freezes on thinkpad t60

    On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > Hmm, not that I have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I
    > don't know that they would encourage bad code. They are not going to
    > reduce latency under a locked section, but will improve determinism
    > in the contended case.

    xadd really generally *is* slower than an add. One is often microcoded,
    the other is not.

    But the real problem is that your "unlock" sequence is now about two
    orders of magnitude slower than it used to be. So it used to be that a
    spinlocked sequence only had a single synchronization point, now it has
    two. *That* is really bad, and I guarantee that it makes your spinlocks
    effectively twice as slow for the non-contended parts.

    But your xadd thing might be worth looking at, just to see how expensive
    it is. As an _alternative_ to spinlocks, it's certainly viable.

    (Side note: why make it a word? Word operations are slower on many x86
    implementations, because they add yet another prefix. You only need a

    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: 2007-06-26 19:29    [W:0.020 / U:1.568 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site