On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 03:03:15PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > Allright, sorry for the delay, I had those stored into my "need more > than half a brain cell for review" list and only got to them today :-)
No problem :) > On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 18:12 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Using lwsync, isync sequence in a microbenchmark is 5 times faster on my G5 > > than > > using sync for smp_mb. Although it takes more instructions. > > > > Running tbench with 4 clients on my 4 core G5 (20 times) gives the > > following: > > > > unpatched AVG=920.33 STD=2.36 > > patched AVG=921.27 STD=2.77 > > > > So not a big improvement here, actually it could even be in the noise. > > But other workloads or systems might see a bigger win, and the patch > > maybe is interesting or could be improved, so I'll ask for comments. > > So not a huge objection here, however I have some doubts as to whether > this will be worthwhile on power5,6,7 since those optimized somewhat the > behaviour of the full sync. Since anything older than power4 doesn't > have lwsync, that potentially makes it not worth the pain. I would be interested to know. Avoiding sync when there *is* outstanding IO operations happening should be a win? (My test of tbench on localhost obviously wouldn't generate much MMIO). I mean, even in the most optimised implementation possible, this sequence is less constraining than sync. > But I need to measure to be sure... it might be that newer embedded > processors that support lwsync and SMP (and that are using a different > pipeline structure) might benefit from this. I'll try to run some tests > later this week or next week, but ping me in case I forget. OK I'll ping you next week. > Now what would be worth doing is to also try using a twi;isync sequence > like we do to order MMIO reads, see if it's any better than cmp/branch Probably makes sense to use the same pattern. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev