This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 2012-11-08 15:32, Torvald Riegel wrote: > On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 15:38 +0000, Lai, Konrad wrote: >> The xabort argument is the only "escape" currently allowed in RTM. So it is not possible to use a separate Boolean in memory. > > No, that's not what I meant. The boolean would be used in libitm's > htm_abort(), which the architecture-specific code (eg, > config/x86/target.h) would then change into whatever the particular HTM > uses as abort reasons (eg, true would become 0xff). That's just to keep > as much of libitm portable as possible, nothing more. > >> [Roman just posted an example in http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2012/11/06/exploring-intel-transactional-synchronization-extensions-with-intel-software ] >> >> I don't know "any" large code that uses cancel. Someone claim there is one in STAMP, and one got speed up if it was removed. I think this discussion potentially explains why. > > The abort in STAMP is bogus. They didn't instrument all of the code (if > you use the manual instrumentation), and the abort is just there to > "catch" race conditions and other inconsistencies. > > My suggestions for next steps are to move the begin stuff to assembly. > After that, we can go for the abort branch, if removing it really makes > a non-negligible performance difference. I believe this is the sort of patch that Torvald was talking about for handling abortTransaction with RTM. Andi, can you please test? r~
Attachment:
z
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |