lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/3] x86: faster mb()+other barrier.h tweaks
Hi,

On 2016-01-26 10:20:14 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:25:24PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On 01/12/16 14:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's
> > > 2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl $0,(%%e/rsp) that we use on older CPUs.
> > >
> > > So let's use the locked variant everywhere - helps keep the code simple as
> > > well.
> > >
> > > While I was at it, I found some inconsistencies in comments in
> > > arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h
> > >
> > > I hope I'm not splitting this up too much - the reason is I wanted to isolate
> > > the code changes (that people might want to test for performance) from comment
> > > changes approved by Linus, from (so far unreviewed) comment change I came up
> > > with myself.
> > >
> > > Lightly tested on my system.
> > >
> > > Michael S. Tsirkin (3):
> > > x86: drop mfence in favor of lock+addl
> > > x86: drop a comment left over from X86_OOSTORE
> > > x86: tweak the comment about use of wmb for IO
> > >
> >
> > I would like to get feedback from the hardware team about the
> > implications of this change, first.

> Any luck getting some feedback on this one?

Ping? I just saw a bunch of kernel fences in a benchmark, making me
wonder why linux uses mfence rather than lock addl. Leading me to this
thread.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-11 19:48    [W:0.086 / U:8.544 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site