[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <15400.1364201661@ale.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 19:54:21 +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 02/29] x86, tsx: Add RTM intrinsics
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 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.
OK, well most of my objections go away now.
> 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.
Well if you're moving it out of generic code then it doesn't really
matter anymore.
Mikey
>
> BTW if the percpu include loop hell is ever sorted out _xtest may
> even stop using XTEST.
--
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