[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <559ea507-b3cb-74e0-7816-26bb8cbc0238@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 10:24:53 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: cmpxchg and x86 flags output
On 06/21/16 02:06, David Howells wrote:
>
> However, there's probably not a great deal of difference to be had if the
> inline asm codes the appropriate instruction in each case for something like
> x86*. The emitted code ought to look the same. The second biggest win for
> the intriniscs, I think, is the ability to ask the CMPXCHG instruction whether
> it actually did anything rather than comparing the result. I added two
> variants, one that only returned the yes/no and one that passed back the value
> as well as the yes/no.
>
Right, and we want that either way. The API change that you are
proposing is definitely what we want; the specifics of the x86
implementation is sort of orthogonal.
-hpa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists