On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 06:42:10PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: ... > They should also improve performance in heavily contended case due to > the nature of how they spin, but I know that's not something you want > to hear about. And theoretically there should be no reason why xadd is > any slower than dec and look at the status flags, should there? I never > implementedit in optimised assembly to test though... ...
BTW, could you explain why the below diagnose doesn't relate to your solution? On 06/21/2007 12:08 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: ... > So it seems the problem was that if a core kept _truly_ modifying a > cacheline via atomics in a high enough frequency, it could artificially > starve the other core. (which would keep waiting for the cacheline to be > released one day, and which kept the first core from ever making any > progress) To me that looks like a real problem on the hardware side - > shouldnt cacheline ownership be arbitrated a bit better than that? > Thanks & regards, Jarek P. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/