Re: TSCs are a no-no on i386

From: Jan-Benedict Glaw (jbglaw@lug-owl.de)
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 01:29:36 EST

Next message: Rob Landley: "Re: [PATCH] General filesystem cache"
Previous message: Bernd Eckenfels: "Re: [PATCH] sparse function pointer arguments now accept void pointers"
In reply to: Petr Vandrovec: "Re: TSCs are a no-no on i386"
Next in thread: Jan-Benedict Glaw: "Re: TSCs are a no-no on i386"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, 2003-07-30 23:50:32 +0200, Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>
wrote in message <20030730215032.GA18892@vana.vc.cvut.cz>:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 10:28:22PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-07-30 20:45:29 +0200, Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>

> And yes, it speeds some workloads a lot. Best to look at code,
> with these instructions you can do couple of operations without
> doing IPC to synchronize with other threads.

Which ones? I am always told "it's faster, then", but nobody really
proofed that. Take some multithreadded apps. How often do they *really*
lock/unlock mutexes, and in which ratio does that compare to their
"normal" computing needs?

If an application's main job is locking/unlocking mutexes, then the
author should possibly think about that. If it's main task is to do the
computational stuff, then I've got no (real) problem with this extra
Linux^Wtax, esp. on those faster boxes...

MfG, JBG

-- 
   Jan-Benedict Glaw       jbglaw@lug-owl.de    . +49-172-7608481
   "Eine Freie Meinung in  einem Freien Kopf    | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
    fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! |   im Irak!
      ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(IRAQ_WAR_2 | DRM | TCPA));

application/pgp-signature attachment: stored

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Rob Landley: "Re: [PATCH] General filesystem cache"
Previous message: Bernd Eckenfels: "Re: [PATCH] sparse function pointer arguments now accept void pointers"
In reply to: Petr Vandrovec: "Re: TSCs are a no-no on i386"
Next in thread: Jan-Benedict Glaw: "Re: TSCs are a no-no on i386"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:48 EST