Re: [PATCH 3/4, v2] x86: enlightenment for ticket spin locks - eliminateNOPs introduced by first patch

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 06/30/2010 12:07 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> If you're stretching (bloating) them anyway, perhaps we should be using
>> "add" instructions instead, with their better EFLAGS behavior?
> 
> Hmm, yes, that possibility I didn't even consider. Would have
> the potential to get away without that admittedly ugly "unary"
> assembler macro altogether, though at the price of growing all
> instructions rather than just those that have a non-symbolic
> and small displacement. Since unlock generally gets inlined, I'm
> not certain this additional growth in code size would be
> acceptable...
> 
> Please let me know, though before submitting an eventual third
> version I'd appreciate knowing especially the first two patches
> need further changes in order to get accepted.
> 

Will look at it today, hopefully.  The Syslinux 4.00 release has
unfortunately occupied me over the last week-plus.

As far as the "unary" macro is concerned... I have to admit I couldn't
even figure out what it was supposed to do.  It could definitely use a
better comment.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/