[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130325081556.GS19692@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 01:15:56 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/29] x86, tsx: Add RTM intrinsics
> FYI the TM spec can be downloaded here:
> https://www.power.org/documentation/power-isa-transactional-memory/
>
> You're example code looks like this:
I don't think portable code will use this directly. Note it's in arch/x86/
Generally portable code should use higher level interfaces, like
elide_lock/elide_lock_adapt that hide the architecture specific
details.
If you want to do lock elision you would plug in some elision
algorithm that works well at that level.
> Secondly, can we make xbegin just return true/false and get the status
> later if needed?
I now removed xbegin() from the portable file, as it's only used
in arch specific code. And FWIW I'm considering to change it to save
a few instructions and go for the more efficient goto based
interface in glibc.
>
> ppc = tcheck... should be fine, other than the name.
Well x and tm doesn't really matter, but I already have x* so i'm inclined
to keep it, unless people bikeshed too strongly. It should work for PPC too.
BTW if the percpu include loop hell is ever sorted out _xtest may
even stop using XTEST.
-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