Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764897AbZLQU0b (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:26:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1764572AbZLQU0O (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:26:14 -0500 Received: from tomts43.bellnexxia.net ([209.226.175.110]:54645 "EHLO tomts43-srv.bellnexxia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1764894AbZLQU0L (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:26:11 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFADIeKkuuWOl3/2dsb2JhbACBS9UNhC0E Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:25:58 -0500 From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Tejun Heo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman , Pekka Enberg , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [this_cpu_xx V7 0/8] Per cpu atomics in core allocators and cleanup Message-ID: <20091217202558.GA21713@Krystal> References: <20091214220320.665065925@quilx.com> <20091215174302.GA3928@Krystal> <4B2830CC.7040309@kernel.org> <20091216014031.GA12282@Krystal> <4B283BFE.2040005@kernel.org> <20091217133958.GA21618@Krystal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Editor: vi X-Info: http://krystal.dyndns.org:8080 X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.27.31-grsec (i686) X-Uptime: 15:15:20 up 1 day, 4:33, 3 users, load average: 0.12, 0.09, 0.03 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1658 Lines: 52 * Christoph Lameter (cl@linux-foundation.org) wrote: > > However, I would need: > > > > this_cpu_cmpxchg(scalar, oldv, newv) > > (maps to x86 cmpxchg) > > > > this_cpu_add_return(scalar, value) > > (maps to x86 xadd) > > > > too. Is that a planned addition ? > > It was not necessary. Its easy to add though. > > > (while we are at it, we might as will add the xchg instruction, > > althrough it has an implied LOCK prefix on x86). > > Well yeah thats a thorny one. One could use the cmpxchg instead? Yes, although maybe it would make sense to encapsulate it in a xchg primitive anyway, in case some architecture has a better xchg than x86. For instance, powerpc, with its linked load/store conditional, can skip a comparison for xchg that's otherwise required for cmpxchg. Some quick test on my Intel Xeon E5405: local cmpxchg: 14 cycles xchg: 18 cycles So yes, indeed, the non-LOCK prefixed local cmpxchg seems a bit faster than the xchg, given the latter has an implied LOCK prefix. Code used for local cmpxchg: old = var; do { ret = cmpxchg_local(&var, old, 4); if (likely(ret == old)) break; old = ret; } while (1); Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/