Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 09:03:00 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: Tommy Hallgren <thallgren@yahoo.com>, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Matt's new unlock optimiazation Message-ID: <199911231703.JAA09896@apollo.backplane.com> References: <19991123140128.3A7D41C6D@overcee.netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:> The entire thread is here: :> http://boudicca.tux.org/hypermail/linux-kernel/this-week/subject.html#start :> :> The subject is: spin_unlock optimization(i386) : :A bit worrying, to say the least, especially coming from Linus (even moreso :in light of his work at transmeta and what they're doing with/to Intel cpu's). : :Cheers, :-Peter hmm. I was under the impression that the Pentium serialized writes by reserving locations through their caches. But knowing Intel, Linus is probably right. Sometimes I wish I could just take a gun to the Pentium. But this isn't a big deal, we should simply be able to do a locked write into the per-cpu area to synchronize just before we release the lock. This is still going to be a whole lot more efficient then trying to lock a write to the shared lock, because we will almost certainly already own that memory location. I'll run some tests and commit a solution Nobody commit anything. No matter what, we still get the benefit of the recursion lock optimization which is actually the more important one. -Matt Matthew Dillon <dillon@backplane.com> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199911231703.JAA09896>