linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: HT and idle = poll
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:52:59 -0800 (PST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.50.0303061219270.1670-100000@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303061204120.8404-100000@home.transmeta.com>

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:

>
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> >
> > Not only. The polling CPU will also shoot a strom of memory requests,
> > clobbering the CPU's memory I/O stages.
>
> Well, that would only be true with a really crappy CPU with no caches.
>
> Polling the same location (as long as it's a pure poll, not trying to do
> some locked read-modify-write cycle) should be fine. At least for
> something like idle-polling, where the one location it _is_ polling should
> not actually be touched by anybody else until the wakeup actually happens.

We are talking about HT, don't we ? Cores share execution units and memory
requests are shot on the memory I/O units of the CPU. Before there is a
cache circuitry intervention. Something like "while (!run);" will generate
an enormous amount of memory I/O requests on the CPU's memory units. That
are shared by cores. Even with non-HT CPU, the above loop creates problems
respect of the latency to exit the loop itself when the condition will
become true. This because of the huge number of alloc request issued, that
must be, exiting the loop, 1) discarded 2) checked against reordering. But
I don't think the exit latency matters a lot here.



- Davide


  reply	other threads:[~2003-03-06 20:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-03-06  5:18 HT and idle = poll Andrew Theurer
2003-03-06 19:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-03-06 19:52   ` Davide Libenzi
2003-03-06 20:05     ` Linus Torvalds
2003-03-06 20:52       ` Davide Libenzi [this message]
2003-03-06 21:09   ` Alan Cox
2003-03-06 20:08     ` Linus Torvalds
2003-03-06 22:36       ` Eric Northup
2003-03-06 22:22   ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-03-06 23:59     ` John Levon
2003-03-06 21:15 Nakajima, Jun
2003-03-06 22:42 ` Alan Cox

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.50.0303061219270.1670-100000@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com \
    --to=davidel@xmailserver.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).