Re: [PATCH RFC/RFB] x86_64, i386: interrupt dispatch changes

[H. Peter Anvin]

Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> I heard from an Intel hardware engineer that Nehalem has some
> really fancy logic in it to make locked instructions "free", that
> was nacked from earlier CPUs because it was too costly. So obviously
> it is taking a fair whack of transistors or power for them to do it.
> And even then it is far from free, but still seems to be one or two
> orders of magnitude more expensive than a regular instruction.
> 

Last I heard it was still a dozen-ish cycles even on Nehalem.

> 
> IMO, we shouldn't stop bothering about LOCK prefix in the forseeable
> future.
> 

Even if a CPU came out *today* that had zero-cost locks we'd have to
worry about it for at least another 5-10 years.  The good news is that
we're doing pretty good with it for now, but I don't believe in general
we can avoid the fact that improving LOCK performance helps everything
when you're dealing with large numbers of cores/threads.

	-hpa

--
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/