search for: clflush_cache_range

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "clflush_cache_range".

2016 Jan 27
2
[PATCH v2 0/3] x86: faster mb()+other barrier.h tweaks
...instruction. It is not guaranteed to be ordered by any other fencing or serializing instructions or by another CLFLUSH instruction. For example, software can use an MFENCE instruction to ensure that previous stores are included in the write-back. There are instances of this in mwait_play_dead, clflush_cache_range, mwait_idle_with_hints, mwait_idle .. A comment near pcommit_sfence includes an example flush_and_commit_buffer code which is interesting - it assumes sfence flushes clflush. So it appears that pcommit_sfence in that file is wrong then? At least on processors where it falls back on clflush. mwai...
2016 Jan 27
2
[PATCH v2 0/3] x86: faster mb()+other barrier.h tweaks
...instruction. It is not guaranteed to be ordered by any other fencing or serializing instructions or by another CLFLUSH instruction. For example, software can use an MFENCE instruction to ensure that previous stores are included in the write-back. There are instances of this in mwait_play_dead, clflush_cache_range, mwait_idle_with_hints, mwait_idle .. A comment near pcommit_sfence includes an example flush_and_commit_buffer code which is interesting - it assumes sfence flushes clflush. So it appears that pcommit_sfence in that file is wrong then? At least on processors where it falls back on clflush. mwai...
2016 Jan 26
2
[PATCH v2 0/3] x86: faster mb()+other barrier.h tweaks
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:25:24PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 01/12/16 14:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's > > 2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl $0,(%%e/rsp) that we use on older CPUs. > > > > So let's use the locked variant everywhere - helps keep the code simple as >
2016 Jan 26
2
[PATCH v2 0/3] x86: faster mb()+other barrier.h tweaks
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 02:25:24PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 01/12/16 14:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > mb() typically uses mfence on modern x86, but a micro-benchmark shows that it's > > 2 to 3 times slower than lock; addl $0,(%%e/rsp) that we use on older CPUs. > > > > So let's use the locked variant everywhere - helps keep the code simple as >