Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1349291
| From | Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: x86 memory barrier: why does Linux prefer MFENCE to Locked ADD? |
| Date | 2016-03-03 16:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r8Dw6-Di-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <r8D35-k8-37@gated-at.bofh.it> <r8Dmq-ux-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 04:27:39PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > My understanding about arch/x86/include/asm/barrier.h is: obviously Linux
> > more likes {L,S,M}FENCE -- Locked ADD is only used in x86_32 platforms that
> > don't support XMM2.
> >
> > However, it looks people say Locked Add is much faster than the FENCE
> > instructions, even on modern Intel CPUs like Haswell, e.g., please see
> > the three sources:
> >
> > " 11.5.1 Locked Instructions as Memory Barriers
> > Optimization
> > Use locked instructions to implement Store/Store and Store/Load barriers.
> > "
> > http://support.amd.com/TechDocs/47414_15h_sw_opt_guide.pdf
> >
> > "lock addl %(rsp), 0 is a better solution for StoreLoad barrier ":
> > http://shipilev.net/blog/2014/on-the-fence-with-dependencies/
> >
> > "...locked instruction are more efficient barriers...":
> > http://www.pvk.ca/Blog/2014/10/19/performance-optimisation-~-writing-an-essay/
> >
> > I also found that FreeBSD prefers Locked Add.
> >
> > So, I'm curious why Linux prefers MFENCE.
> > I guess I may be missing something.
> >
> > I tried to google the question, but didn't find an answer.
>
> It's being worked on, see this thread on lkml from a few weeks ago:
>
> C Jan 13 Michael S. Tsir | [PATCH v3 0/4] x86: faster mb()+documentation tweaks
> C Jan 13 Michael S. Tsir | ├─>[PATCH v3 1/4] x86: add cc clobber for addl
> C Jan 13 Michael S. Tsir | ├─>[PATCH v3 2/4] x86: drop a comment left over from X86_OOSTORE
> C Jan 13 Michael S. Tsir | ├─>[PATCH v3 3/4] x86: tweak the comment about use of wmb for IO
> C Jan 13 Michael S. Tsir | ├─>[PATCH v3 4/4] x86: drop mfence in favor of lock+addl
>
> The 4th patch changes MFENCE to a LOCK ADDL locked instruction.
Lots of additional chatter here:
lkml.kernel.org/r/20160112150032-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com
And some useful bits here:
lkml.kernel.org/r/56957D54.5000602@zytor.com
latest version here:
lkml.kernel.org/r/1453921746-16178-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
x86 memory barrier: why does Linux prefer MFENCE to Locked ADD? Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com> - 2016-03-03 16:10 +0100
Re: x86 memory barrier: why does Linux prefer MFENCE to Locked ADD? Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> - 2016-03-03 16:30 +0100
Re: x86 memory barrier: why does Linux prefer MFENCE to Locked ADD? Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-03-03 16:40 +0100
Re: x86 memory barrier: why does Linux prefer MFENCE to Locked ADD? "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2016-03-03 19:40 +0100
Re: x86 memory barrier: why does Linux prefer MFENCE to Locked ADD? "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2016-03-03 20:10 +0100
csiph-web