Re: x86 - cpu_relax - why nop vs. pause?

[Joerg Roedel]

On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 12:28:51PM -0500, Michael Breuer wrote:
> I did search and noticed some old discussions. Looking at both Intel and  
> AMD documentation, it would seem that PAUSE is the preferred instruction  
> within a spin lock. Further, both Intel and AMD specifications state  
> that the instruction is backward compatible with older x86 processors.

Its not the primary reason, but the hardware virtualization extensions
of x86 processors support an intercept after a configured amount of
pause instructions were executed. This is used to detect spinning vcpus
where the lock-holder is scheduled out.

> For fun, I changed nop to pause on my core i7 920 (smt enabled) and I'm  
> seeing about a 5-10% performance improvement on 2.6.33 rc7. Perf top  
> shows time spent in spin_lock under load drops from an average of around  
> 35% to about 25%.

What benchmarks have you used for your measurements?

	Joerg

--
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/