Re: [PATCH 1 of 4] mm: add a ptep_modify_prot transaction abstraction

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>   
> > Along the lines of:
> >     
>
> Hell no. There's a reason we have a special set_wrprotect() thing. We can 
> do it more efficiently on native hardware by just clearing the bit 
> atomically. No need to do the cmpxchg games.
>   

It's not cmpxchg, just xchg. 

In other words, is:

	lock btr $_PAGE_BIT_RW, (%rbx)

much cheaper than

	mov	$0, %rax
	xchg	%rax, (%rbx)
	and	$~_PAGE_RW, %rax
	mov	%rax, (%rbx)

?

It's the same number of locked RMW operations, so aside from being a few 
instructions longer, I think it would be much the same.

I guess the correct answer is "lmbench".

   J
--
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/