[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130323180010.GK20853@two.firstfloor.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:00:10 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Kernel lock elision for TSX
Hi Linux,
Thanks. Other code/design review would be still appreciated, even
under the current constraints.
> The other comment I have is that since it does touch non-x86 header
> files etc (although not a lot), you really need to talk to the POWER8
> people about naming of the thing. Calling it <linux/rtm.h> and having
> "generic" helpers called _xtest() used by the generic spinlock code
> sounds a bit suspect.
I can make up another name for _xtest()/_xabort() and linux/rtm.h,
(any suggestions?)
The basic concepts implemented there should be pretty universal.
If others have a equivalent of "is this a transaction" and "abort
this tranction" they can just plug it in. Otherwise they will nop it,
as it's only hints anyways.
The only things used outside x86 code is _xtest()/_xabort(), can
remove the rest from linux/*. Without transactions this is all nops.
The primary interface for the lock code is the much higher level
elide()/elide_lock_adapt() interface anyways.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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