On 10/10/2011 12:32 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jer...@goop.org> wrote:
>
>> On 10/06/2011 10:40 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Konrad measures add+mfence is about 65% slower on AMD Phenom as well.
> xadd also results in smaller/tighter code, right?
Not particularly, mostly because of the overflow-into-the-high-part
compensation. But its only a couple of extra instructions, and no
conditionals, so I don't think it would have any concrete effect.
But, as Stephen points out, perhaps locked add is preferable to locked
xadd, since it also has the same barrier as mfence but has
(significantly!) better performance than either mfence or locked xadd...
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
