[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1108231355380.26421@router.home>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 14:01:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/15] x86: add cmpxchg_flag() variant
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Most callers of cmpxchg() direcly compare RETURN with OLD to see if it was
> successful. This results in unnecessary conditional comparisons
> and conditionals since the cmpxchg instruction directly sets the flags
> to indicate success/failure.
> Add cmpxchg_flag() variants which return a boolean flag directly indicating
> success. Unfortunately an asm() statement can't directly export status
> status flags, but sete isn't too bad.
And so what happens through this patch is that a cmp with a value that is
likely in a register is replaced by a sete. Is there really a benefit?
What I wish we would have is the actual use of the processor flag.
if (cmpxchg_flags(....)) {
}
where the cmpxchg is followed immediately by a jump. I tried in the past
to pass a goto label to cmpxchg but that did not work.
--
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