[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <15098.1364201425@ale.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:50:25 +1100
From: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
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 01/29] tsx: Add generic noop macros for RTM intrinsics
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > RTM == restricted transactional memory. I don't understand why it's
> > "restricted" and why any other architecture else would call it that and
>
> It's restricted as in there is no guarantee that a transaction ever succeeds
> and always needs a fallback path. My understanding is that this is true for
> PPC too, but not necessarily zSeries.
Yes, ppc is limited in this way too. We just didn't call it a silly
name, although we do have the TEXASR register for TM status to make up
for it. :-)
Mikey
>
> > hence why Linux should call it that?
> >
> > Can we just call it TM for transactional memory? Each arch can then
> > have their own implementation and call it what they want.
>
> I don't think the name will stop them to do anything.
>
> If people feel strongly about it can change it, but it's not
> actually making a real difference.
>
> -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