[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.20.13.1706182332520.21867@monopod.intra.ispras.ru>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2017 23:38:08 +0300 (MSK)
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] a new lock algorithm with lock value and CS counts
in the same atomic int
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017, Rich Felker wrote:
> > If we want code sharing with the rest of musl (which we should) I like
> > Alexander's idea of a __futexwait inline function much better.
>
> I don't think there's any value to making it inline. If it could be a
> single syscall, that would be one thing, but with the fallback for old
> systems that lack private futex, it's just a gratuitously large inline
> chunk that's likely to interfere with inlining/optimization of the
> caller, and certainly has no potential to improve performance (since
> there's a syscall involved).
The original suggestion was to move two syscalls into a static inline function,
with contents mirroring those of __wake. If that's too large, then so is __wake
(and all you've said applies equally to __wake, which is static inline).
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
