Re: [git pull] scheduler updates

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 10:28:21 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Ingo Molnar (2):
> >       sched: improve sched_clock() performance
> >       sched: optimize sched_clock() a bit
> 
> Btw, why do we do that _idiotic_ rdtsc_barrier() AT ALL?
> 
> No sane user can possibly want it. If you do 'rdtsc', there's nothing
> you can do about a few cycles difference due to OoO _anyway_. Adding
> barriers is entirely meaningless - it's not going to make the return
> value mean anything else.
> 
> Can we please just remove that idiocy? Or can somebody give a _sane_ 
> argument for it?

historically it was for early AMD cpus (K7, not sure if early K8 did
this) where 2 consecutive rdtsc's in the same codestream would get
reordered compared to eachother, so you could observe the tsc go
backwards...



-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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/