Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 16:15:32 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Atomic operations on i386/amd64 Message-ID: <4112B184.8010303@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <200408051759.53079.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <20040805050422.GA41201@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> <200408051759.53079.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. > > >>Also, could we use MFENCE/LFENCE/SFENCE in combination with MOV on >>SMP systems instead of LOCK CMPXCHG / (implied LOCK) XCHG? > > > MFENCE and LFENCE only exist on the P4. SFENCE only exists on P3+, so to do > so you'd lose the ability to run on PII's and earlier. Also, if you use more > than SFENCE you lose PIII's. Note that amd64 could probably be changed > though since they might all have fences, in which case that might be > something to benchmark on both UP and SMP to see what kind of difference it > makes. > We always have the ability to define PENTIUM2_CPU, PENTIUM3_CPU, and PENTIUM4_CPU cpu types in the kernel and then ifdef the code appropriately (and ship with the lowest common denominator like we do for I386/I486/I586/I686.) Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4112B184.8010303>