[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 8/5] llist: Remove cpu_relax() usage in cmpxchg loops
On Mon, 2011-09-12 at 18:38 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > so basically, in typical locking primitives (spinlock), it looks like
> > lower power consumption is preferred over getting the raw maximal
> It's not only power, its:
> - Allow the other siblings make more progress on SMT
> - Do some backoff to stress the interconnect less (this is important on >2S):
> A tight loop which constantly writes is a extremly stressfull pattern.
> - Save some power by allowing the CPU to do more clock gating

If you're hitting a cmpxchg hard enough for any of those to make a
difference you're doing it wrong.

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-09-12 20:55    [W:0.077 / U:4.196 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site