Re: [PATCH tip/tracing/markers] new probes manager

[Lai Jiangshan]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Do you have performance measurements for this ? On x86 it's a nop,
>>> AFAIK.
>> My statement above is inexact : x86_64 uses lfence for rmb(). But
>> numbers would still be welcome.
> 
> yes, the statement that rmb() is very expensive looks dubious. It is 
> absolutely cheap everywhere.
> 
> 	Ingo
> 
> 
> 

On x86 it's _NOT_ a nop.

i386
#define rmb() alternative("lock; addl $0,0(%%esp)", "lfence", X86_FEATURE_XMM2)

uses the "lock" prefix.

x86_64
#define rmb()	asm volatile("lfence":::"memory")

uses the "lfence"

these two are harm for cache. rmb is exactly a expensive operator.

rmb() is indeed cheaper than any other atomic-operator(atomic, spin_lock .. etc)
everywhere. but In a fast path, avoiding rmb() is worthy.


		Thanx, Lai

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