[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170706153427.GA30746@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 08:34:27 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, mcgrof@...nel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
sfr@...b.auug.org.au, nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com,
rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk, msalter@...hat.com,
tklauser@...tanz.ch, james.hogan@...tec.com,
paul.gortmaker@...driver.com, linux@...ck-us.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
albert@...ive.com, patches@...ups.riscv.org,
mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] RISC-V: User-facing API
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 09:55:03AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Agreed on the indirection; it feels like this is something that should be in
> the vDSO, which could use the cmpxchg instruction if it's available, or
> otherwise just uses plain loads and stores.
Even that seems like a lot of indirection for something that is in
the critical fast path for synchronization. I really can't understand
how a new ISA / ABI could even come up with an idea as stupid as making
essential synchronization primitives optional.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists