Re: [PATCH 13/15] x86: add cmpxchg_flag() variant

[Christoph Lameter]

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:

> Most callers of cmpxchg() direcly compare RETURN with OLD to see if it was
> successful.  This results in unnecessary conditional comparisons
> and conditionals since the cmpxchg instruction directly sets the flags
> to indicate success/failure.

> Add cmpxchg_flag() variants which return a boolean flag directly indicating
> success.  Unfortunately an asm() statement can't directly export status
> status flags, but sete isn't too bad.

And so what happens through this patch is that a cmp with a value that is
likely in a register is replaced by a sete. Is there really a benefit?

What I wish we would have is the actual use of the processor flag.

if (cmpxchg_flags(....)) {
}

where the cmpxchg is followed immediately by a jump. I tried in the past
to pass a goto label to cmpxchg but that did not work.



--
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/