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

[Stefan Liebler]

On 05/17/2017 03:09 PM, Stefan Liebler wrote:
> On 05/10/2017 03:00 PM, Stefan Liebler wrote:
>> 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?
>>
> PING
>
> (This is the post with the patch defining ATOMIC_EXCHANGE_USES_CAS:
> https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-04/msg00135.html)
PING

>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>