Re: [cpuops cmpxchg V1 2/4] x86: this_cpu_cmpxchg and this_cpu_xchgoperations

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 12/08/2010 10:17 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> 
> Hi Christoph,
> 
> Can you show if this provides savings in terms of:
> 
> - instruction cache footprint
> - cycles required to run
> - large-scale impact on the branch prediction buffers
> 
> Given that this targets per-cpu data only, the additional impact on cache-line
> exchange traffic of using cmpxchg over xchg (cache-line not grabbed as exclusive
> by the initial read) should not really matter.
> 
> I'm CCing Arjan and HPA, because they might have some interesting insight into
> the performance impact of lock-prefixed xchg vs using local cmpxchg in a loop.
> 

XCHG is always locked; it doesn't need the prefix.  Unfortunately,
unlike on the 8086 on modern processors locks have a real cost.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/