Re: [uml-devel] [patch 02/12] uml: cpu_relax fix

[Nick Piggin]

Blaisorblade wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 March 2005 18:09, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
>
> > blaisorblade@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > > Use rep_nop instead of barrier for cpu_relax, following $(SUBARCH)'s
> > > doing that (i.e. i386 and x86_64).
> >
> > IIRC, Jeff had the idea, to use sched_yield() for this (from a discussion
> > on #uml).
>
> Hmm, makes sense, but this is to benchmark well... I remember from early 
> discussions on 2.6 scheduler that using sched_yield might decrease 
> performance (IIRC starve the calling application).

Typically, for places where cpu_relax is used, sched_yield would be
a poor fit. So yes it could easily reduce performance.

> Also, that call should be put inside the idle loop, not for cpu_relax, which 
> is very different, since it is used (for instance) in kernel/spinlock.c for 
> spinlocks, and in such things. The "Pause" opcode is explicitly recommended 
> (by Intel manuals, I don't recall why) for things like spinlock loops, and 
> using yield there would be bad.

The other thing is that sched_yield won't relax at all if you are the
only thing running, it will be a busy wait. So again, maybe not a great
fit for the idle loop either.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/