[PATCH 1/2] [PING] Optimize generic spinlock code and use C11 like atomic macros.

[Stefan Liebler]

On 05/03/2017 01:38 PM, Stefan Liebler wrote:
> On 04/25/2017 08:46 AM, Stefan Liebler wrote:
>> On 04/18/2017 03:09 PM, Stefan Liebler wrote:
>>> On 04/10/2017 01:59 PM, Stefan Liebler wrote:
>>>> On 04/09/2017 03:51 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 18:22 +0200, Stefan Liebler wrote:
>>>>>> @architecture maintainers:
>>>>>> I've added defines of ATOMIC_EXCHANGE_USES_CAS in the architecture
>>>>>> specific atomic-machine.h files.
>>>>>> See comment in include/atomic.h:
>>>>>> /* ATOMIC_EXCHANGE_USES_CAS is equal to 1 if atomic_exchange
>>>>>> operations
>>>>>>     are implemented based on a CAS loop; otherwise, this is 0 and we
>>>>>> assume
>>>>>>     that the atomic_exchange operations could provide better
>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>     than a CAS loop.  */
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can review the definition to 0 or 1 in the atomic-machine.h file of
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> architecture, please?
>>>
>>>
>>> PING
>>>
>> PING
>
> PING

PING

@Torvald:
I'm not sure if we will get answers from everybody.
What do you propose how to proceed with the definitions of 
ATOMIC_EXCHANGE_USES_CAS?

>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we primarily need feedback from the maintainers of the
>>>>> architectures where we're not quite sure.  Let's see how responsive
>>>>> everyone is and then decide whether we need to continue pinging
>>>>> some of
>>>>> them potentially or whether we have enough information to be able to
>>>>> commit the patch.
>>>>>
>>>> Okay.
>>>>
>>>> Chris has already replied directly to me.
>>>> On 04/07/2017 06:50 PM, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>>>>> Thanks, looks good for tilegx/tilepro.
>>>>
>> Andreas has answered regarding the explicit check of
>> ATOMIC_EXCHANGE_USES_CAS in include/atomic.h.
>> @Andreas: is m68k okay?
>>
>> Joseph has replied for mips.
>>
>> What about the other architectures? Is the definition of
>> ATOMIC_EXCHANGE_USES_CAS correct?
>>
>>>> Bye
>>>> Stefan
>>>>
>>>
>>
>