lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC/RFB] x86_64, i386: interrupt dispatch changes
Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> I heard from an Intel hardware engineer that Nehalem has some
> really fancy logic in it to make locked instructions "free", that
> was nacked from earlier CPUs because it was too costly. So obviously
> it is taking a fair whack of transistors or power for them to do it.
> And even then it is far from free, but still seems to be one or two
> orders of magnitude more expensive than a regular instruction.
>

Last I heard it was still a dozen-ish cycles even on Nehalem.

>
> IMO, we shouldn't stop bothering about LOCK prefix in the forseeable
> future.
>

Even if a CPU came out *today* that had zero-cost locks we'd have to
worry about it for at least another 5-10 years. The good news is that
we're doing pretty good with it for now, but I don't believe in general
we can avoid the fact that improving LOCK performance helps everything
when you're dealing with large numbers of cores/threads.

-hpa



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-14 02:33    [W:0.132 / U:0.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site