On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 01:20:06PM -0500, Robert Love wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-02-23 at 06:38, yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
>
> > So without preemption in the kernel
> > maybe 4 instructions: calculate cpuid, inc; all local no cache ping
> > code is easy to read and understand.
> >
> > with preemption in the kernel
> > a design problem. a slippery synchronization issue that
> > involves the characteristic preemption error - code that works
> > most of the time.
>
> Or not. The topic of this thread was a micro-optimization. If we treat
> the variable as anything normal requiring synchronization under SMP, any
> of the standard solutions (atomic ops, etc.) work. If we want to get
And cause cache ping, possible contention, ...
> fancy, we can disable preemption, use my atomic_irq ops, or just not
> care.
Right. Without preemption it is safe to do
c = smp_get_cpuid();
...
x = ++local_cache[c]
..
y = ++different_local_cache[c];
..
With preemption this turns into a problem that is easier to solve
with a lock or by not having per-cpu caches in the first place --
eg by writing worse code. After all, those are just micro-optimizations
and a few percent here, a few percent there, nobody will notice it. -(
-- --------------------------------------------------------- Victor Yodaiken Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company. www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:51 EST