[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 07/18] qemu-thread: add simple test-and-set s

From: Sergey Fedorov
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 07/18] qemu-thread: add simple test-and-set spinlock
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 17:47:25 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2

On 18/05/16 17:18, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
> On 18/05/16 03:28, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 23:20:11 +0300, Sergey Fedorov wrote:
>>> On 17/05/16 23:04, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
>> (snip)
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * We might we tempted to use __atomic_test_and_set with __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE;
>>>> + * however, the documentation explicitly says that we should only pass
>>>> + * a boolean to it, so we use __sync_lock_test_and_set, which doesn't
>>>> + * have this limitation, and is documented to have acquire semantics.
>>>> + */
>>>> +#define atomic_test_and_set_acquire(ptr) __sync_lock_test_and_set(ptr, 
>>>> true)
>>> So you are going to stick to *legacy* built-ins?
>> Why not? AFAIK the reason to avoid __sync primitives is that in most cases
>> they include barriers that callers might not necessarily need; __atomic's
>> allow for finer tuning, which is in general a good thing. However,
>> __sync_test_and_set has the exact semantics we need, without the limitations
>> documented for __atomic_test_and_set; so why not use it?
> So it should be okay as long as the legacy build-ins are supported.

However, there's also __atomic_compare_exchange_n(). Could it be the choice?

Kind regards,

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]