On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 02:04:56AM -0400, Mark Johnston wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 11:22:22AM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 07:38:21AM +0200, Wojciech Macek wrote:
> > > Intel does not reorder reads against the condition "if" here. I know for
> > > sure that ARM does, but therestill might be some other architectures that
> > > also suffers such behavior - I just don't have any means to verify.
> > > I remember the discussion for rS302292 where we agreed that this kind of
> > > patches should be the least impacting in perfomrance as possible. Adding
> > > unconditional memory barrier causes significant performance drop on Intel,
> > > where in fact, the issue was never seen.
> > >
> > Atomic_thread_fence_acq() is nop on x86, or rather, it is compiler memory
> > barrier. If you need read/read fence on some architectures, I am sure
> > that you need compiler barrier on all.
>
> To add a bit, one reason to prefer atomic(9) to explicit fences is
> precisely because it issues fences only when required by a given
> CPU architecture. There is no "unconditional memory barrier" added by
> the diff even without the #ifdef.
Well, atomic_thread_fence_acq() is the explicit fence. And on x86 it
does add unconditional compiler memory barrier.
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
