lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] barriers: introduce smp_mb__release_acquire and update documentation
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 02:44:39PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

> > > > I am with Peter -- we do need the benchmark results for PPC.
> > >
> > > Urgh, sorry guys. I have been slowly doing some benchmarks, but time is not
> > > plentiful at the moment.
> > >
> > > If we do a straight lwsync -> sync conversion for unlock it looks like that
> > > will cost us ~4.2% on Anton's standard context switch benchmark.
> >
> > And that does not seem to agree with Paul's smp_mb__after_unlock_lock()
> > usage and would not be sufficient for the same (as of yet unexplained)
> > reason.
> >
> > Why does it matter which of the LOCK or UNLOCK gets promoted to full
> > barrier on PPC in order to become RCsc?
>
> You could do either. However, as I understand it, there is hardware for
> which bc;isync is faster than lwsync. For such hardware, it is cheaper
> to upgrade the unlock from lwsync to sync than to upgrade the lock from
> bc;isync to sync. If I recall correctly, the kernel rewrites itself at
> boot to select whichever of lwsync or bc;isync is better for the hardware
> at hand.

Fair enough. I'll go wake up and think about the other issue ;-)


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-10-09 10:01    [W:0.129 / U:0.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site