[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E0240AC.9060603@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:21:16 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/7] x86: convert ticketlocks to C and remove duplicate
code
On 06/21/2011 07:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> One other thing you could contemplate is adding something like:
>
> #define xadd(ptr, inc) \
> do { \
> switch(sizeof(*(ptr))) { \
> case 1: \
> asm volatile (LOCK_PREFIX "xaddb %0, %1\n" \
> : "+r" (inc), "+m" (*(ptr)) \
> : : "memory", "cc"); \
> case 2:
> ... xaddw ...
> case 4:
> ... xaddl ...
> } while (0)
>
> and a similar something for inc. For both there seem to be various asm
> bits left (we could even consider adding xadd to
> arch/x86/include/asm/cmpxchg*.h).
A friend just pointed out that gcc has a "__sync_fetch_and_add()"
intrinsic, which compiles to xadd when used in this context. What's the
general feeling about using these kinds of gcc features?
It also has __sync_bool_compare_and_swap(), which would simplify a lot
of asm/cmpxchg.h...
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists