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

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 08/23/2011 12:01 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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.
> 

Yes; asm goto can't have output values :(

I keep meaning to write up a proposal for the gcc people to output
arithmetic flag status.

	-hpa

--
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/