On Thursday 05 August 2004 11:43 pm, Scott Long wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > > On Thursday 05 August 2004 01:04 am, Tim Robbins wrote: > >>Is there any particular reason why atomic_load_acq_*() and > >>atomic_store_rel_*() are implemented with CMPXCHG and XCHG instead of > >>MOV on i386/amd64 UP? > > > > Actually, using mov instead of lock xchg for store_rel reduced > > performance in some benchmarks Scott ran on an SMP machine, I'm guessing > > due to the higher latency of locks becoming available to other CPUs. I'm > > still waiting for benchmark results on UP to see if the change should be > > made under #ifndef SMP or some such. > > Your patch appears to slightly pessimize UP as well and SMP. Hmm, well so much for LOCK XCHG being evil then I guess. This points out that we should really benchmark the *FENCE changes to see if they help or hurt as well before committing them. -- John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.orgReceived on Fri Aug 06 2004 - 15:46:48 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:05 UTC