[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:0.028 / U:0.624 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site