Re: [RFC] unify semaphore implementations
From: Trond Myklebust (trond.myklebust_at_fys.uio.no)
Date: 04/30/05
- Previous message: Verbally G. Wyomingites: "PHOTOS YOUNG GIRLS"
- In reply to: Paul Mackerras: "Re: [RFC] unify semaphore implementations"
- Next in thread: Paul Mackerras: "Re: [RFC] unify semaphore implementations"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 12:40:29 -0400
On lau , 2005-04-30 at 11:45 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> What is "your machine"? Is a single cmpxchg really slower than
> locking and unlocking a spinlock? If so, by how much?
Sorry. Thinking back, I realize that I was testing the non-irqsafe
spinlocks, since that was the only case that was of interest for the
iosem stuff. I should go back and test for the case of irqsafe ones.
FYI, though, the machine on which I tested it is a mobile P4. When
averaging over 1000 iterations, a single bus-locked cmpxchg took more
than twice the amount of time to complete than a single bus-locked incb
or decb (as used in the 386 spinlock implementations).
The spinlocked version was therefore not much faster for the fast path,
but for the slow path you do only a single spin_lock/spin_unlock
combination instead of cmpxchg+spinlock/spinunlock. It is therefore
twice as fast.
Cheers,
Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Verbally G. Wyomingites: "PHOTOS YOUNG GIRLS"
- In reply to: Paul Mackerras: "Re: [RFC] unify semaphore implementations"
- Next in thread: Paul Mackerras: "Re: [RFC] unify semaphore implementations"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
