Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: RFC: Kernel lock elision for TSX | From | Benjamin Herrenschmidt <> | Date | Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:17:37 +0100 |
| |
On Sat, 2013-03-23 at 19:00 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > Hi Linux, > > Thanks. Other code/design review would be still appreciated, even > under the current constraints. > > > The other comment I have is that since it does touch non-x86 header > > files etc (although not a lot), you really need to talk to the POWER8 > > people about naming of the thing. Calling it <linux/rtm.h> and having > > "generic" helpers called _xtest() used by the generic spinlock code > > sounds a bit suspect. > > I can make up another name for _xtest()/_xabort() and linux/rtm.h, > (any suggestions?) > > The basic concepts implemented there should be pretty universal. > If others have a equivalent of "is this a transaction" and "abort > this tranction" they can just plug it in. Otherwise they will nop it, > as it's only hints anyways. > > The only things used outside x86 code is _xtest()/_xabort(), can > remove the rest from linux/*. Without transactions this is all nops. > The primary interface for the lock code is the much higher level > elide()/elide_lock_adapt() interface anyways.
Adding Michael Neuling to the CC list, he's probably the LTC person who is the most familiar with POWER8 TM at the moment.
Cheers, Ben.
> -Andi >
| |