Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe?

[Måns Rullgård]

Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:29:56 -0700
> "David Schwartz" <davids@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 
>> > Well that's exactly right. For threaded programs (and maybe even
>> > real-world non-threaded ones in general), you don't want to be
>> > even _reading_ global variables if you don't need to. Cache misses
>> > and cacheline bouncing could easily cause performance to completely
>> > tank in some cases while only gaining a cycle or two in
>> > microbenchmarks for doing these funny x86 predication things.
>> 
>> For some CPUs, replacing an conditional branch with a conditional
>> move is a *huge* win because it cannot be mispredicted.
>
> please name one...
> Hint: It's not one made by either Intel or AMD in the last 4 years...

ARM.  On ARM1136 (used in the Nokia N800) a mispredicted branch takes
5-7 cycles (a correctly predicted branch takes 0-4 cycles), while a
conditional load, store or arithmetic instruction always takes one
cycle.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mans@xxxxxxxxx

-
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/