Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 27 May 2016 16:21:11 -0700
From:      John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
To:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Cc:        Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
Subject:   Re: [PATCH] microoptimize locking primitives by avoiding unnecessary atomic ops
Message-ID:  <1588845.bSUmdZtqRF@ralph.baldwin.cx>
In-Reply-To: <20160527191700.GA23039@dft-labs.eu>
References:  <20160527191700.GA23039@dft-labs.eu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, May 27, 2016 09:17:01 PM Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> Hello there,
> 
> quite some time ago I posted a trivial patch to locking primitives. What
> they do is the inline part tries an atomic op and if that fails the
> actual function is called, which immediately tries the same op.
> 
> The obvious optimisation checks for the availability of the lock first.
> 
> There concerns about the way it was done previously by relying on
> volatile behaving in a specific way.
> 
> Later a simplified version was posted which should not have the concern,
> but the thread died.
> 
> I refer you to https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2015-November/058100.html
> for simple benchmark results.
> 
> I would like to get the patch in before 11 freeze.

I think this looks fine.  Thanks for expanding the previous patch to cover
more primitives.

-- 
John Baldwin



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1588845.bSUmdZtqRF>