On 10/06/2011 07:04 AM, Stephan Diestelhorst wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 September 2011, 14:49:56 Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> Which certainly should *work*, but from a conceptual standpoint, isn't
>> it just *much* nicer to say "we actually know *exactly* what the upper
>> bits were".
> Well, we really do NOT want atomicity here. What we really rather want
> is sequentiality: free the lock, make the update visible, and THEN
> check if someone has gone sleeping on it.
>
> Atomicity only conveniently enforces that the three do not happen in a
> different order (with the store becoming visible after the checking
> load).
>
> This does not have to be atomic, since spurious wakeups are not a
> problem, in particular not with the FIFO-ness of ticket locks.
>
> For that the fence, additional atomic etc. would be IMHO much cleaner
> than the crazy overflow logic.
All things being equal I'd prefer lock-xadd just because its easier to
analyze the concurrency for, crazy overflow tests or no. But if
add+mfence turned out to be a performance win, then that would obviously
tip the scales.
However, it looks like locked xadd is also has better performance: on
my Sandybridge laptop (2 cores, 4 threads), the add+mfence is 20% slower
than locked xadd, so that pretty much settles it unless you think
there'd be a dramatic difference on an AMD system.
(On Nehalem it was much less dramatic 2% difference, but still in favour
of locked xadd.)
This is with dumb-as-rocks run it in a loop with "time" benchmark, but
the results are not very subtle.
J
add-barrier.c
Description: Text Data
locked-xadd.c
Description: Text Data
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home