This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix __lll_timedlock_wait busy-wait issue
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim dot kuvyrkov at linaro dot org>
- Cc: Will Newton <will dot newton at linaro dot org>, <bniebuhr at efjohnson dot com>, <uclibc at uclibc dot org>, "libc-ports at sourceware dot org" <libc-ports at sourceware dot org>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:19:06 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix __lll_timedlock_wait busy-wait issue
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1395409800-4457-1-git-send-email-bniebuhr at efjohnson dot com> <09F962CB-595F-4FAB-9435-52C237DB402C at linaro dot org> <CANu=Dmhn-a-PUNA88OfpoAQyvUZGd3UH+LB+cf=fLWyUNyyU+A at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1403272157560 dot 25264 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <AAA7B2C5-5A95-4B74-B792-E99B2C27643E at linaro dot org>
On Fri, 28 Mar 2014, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't know how this might relate to
> > <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15119> (see
> > <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2013-01/msg00084.html> and
> > <https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2013-02/msg00021.html> and the rest
> > of that thread). But my preference for how to address this is definitely
> > to move to unifying lowlevellock.[ch] files across as many architectures
> > as possible - which requires someone to understand the differences and
> > produce a careful analysis that shows what the best form for generic files
> > is and what cases actually require architecture-specific files to override
> > those generic files (preferably overriding only the bits that need
> > overriding).
>
> Yeap, it's the same issue in the PR and same solution as in this thread.
> Unfortunately, the previous discussion veered off towards sparc away
> from ARM and got forgotten.
The present thread is specifically discussing lowlevellock.c, but Carlos
suggested in the previous discussion that the real issue was in
__lll_timedlock in lowlevellock.h. I think both files need unification
across architectures.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com