[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1364134657.11644.16.camel@pasglop>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:17:37 +0100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Michael Neuling <michael.neuling@....ibm.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: Kernel lock elision for TSX
On Sat, 2013-03-23 at 19:00 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 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.
Adding Michael Neuling to the CC list, he's probably the LTC person who
is the most familiar with POWER8 TM at the moment.
Cheers,
Ben.
> -Andi
>
--
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