Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] virtio: put last seen used index into ring itself

[Avi Kivity]

On 05/23/2010 06:51 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > So locked version seems to be faster than unlocked,
> > > and share/unshare not to matter?
> > >
> > >        
> > May be due to the processor using the LOCK operation as a hint to
> > reserve the cacheline for a bit.
> >      
> Maybe we should use atomics on index then?
>    

This should only be helpful if you access the cacheline several times in 
a row.  That's not the case in virtio (or here).

I think the problem is that LOCKSHARE and SHARE are not symmetric, so 
they can't be directly compared.

> OK, after adding mb in code patch will be sent separately,
> the test works for my workstation. locked is still fastest,
> unshared sometimes shows wins and sometimes loses over shared.
>
> address@hidden ~]# ./cachebounce share 0 1
> CPU 0: share cacheline: 6638521 usec
> CPU 1: share cacheline: 6638478 usec
>    

66 ns? nice.

> address@hidden ~]# ./cachebounce share 0 2
> CPU 0: share cacheline: 14529198 usec
> CPU 2: share cacheline: 14529156 usec
>    

140 ns, not too bad.  I hope I'm not misinterpreting the results.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function