From: Phil Blundell <pb@pbcl.net>
To: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>, Li Zhou <li.zhou@windriver.com>,
openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] db: disable the ARM assembler mutex code
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 23:14:48 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1478301288.3662.21.camel@pbcl.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b3c8d5de-1d26-b37b-e28c-f8cca01c9ba3@gmail.com>
On Fri, 2016-11-04 at 11:22 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>
>
> On 11/4/16 2:07 AM, Li Zhou wrote:
> >
> > The swpb in macro MUTEX_SET will cause "undefined instruction"
> > error
> > on the new arm arches which don't support this assembly instruction
> > any more. If use ldrex/strex to replace swpb, the old arm arches
> > don't
> > support them. So to avoid this issue, just disable the ARM
> > assembler
> > mutex code, and use the default pthreads mutex.
> >
> it would be good to keep this for older < armv5 arches
I guess you meant "<= ARMv5". STREX etc were introduced in ARMv6, so
ARMv5 (and ARMv5TE) don't have it. But in any case, won't the default
libpthread mutex work just fine on those older architectures? There is
no SMP on anything before ARMv6 anyway so lock contention will be
relatively low, and it seems fairly unlikely that anybody has a real-
world application which uses db so heavily that the mutex
implementation will have any noticeable performance impact.
And, given that it's now something like 15 years since support for
STREX was introduced in ARMv6, and more than 10 years since support for
SWP was deleted in ARMv7, it doesn't seem entirely unreasonable for oe-
core to pick the newer paradigm as the case to optimise for. Distros
that want to target ARMv5 or older are obviously free to do so and they
can carry the SWP patch locally if they want to. But as far as oe-core
itself is concerned, at this point it seems like it's just scar tissue.
p.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-04 23:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-04 9:07 [PATCH] db: disable the ARM assembler mutex code Li Zhou
2016-11-04 9:43 ` Zhou, Li
2016-11-04 16:12 ` Leonardo Sandoval
2016-11-04 18:18 ` Mark Hatle
2016-11-04 18:22 ` Khem Raj
2016-11-04 20:29 ` Burton, Ross
[not found] ` <CAMKF1sp=ZHOP4aY7r11kvURBymq4+uknmeiSGQyP9BUpW_WXBQ@mail.gmail.com>
2016-11-04 21:47 ` Khem Raj
2016-11-04 23:14 ` Phil Blundell [this message]
2016-11-04 23:55 ` Khem Raj
2016-11-05 0:01 ` Phil Blundell
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-11-04 9:12 Li Zhou
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1478301288.3662.21.camel@pbcl.net \
--to=pb@pbcl.net \
--cc=li.zhou@windriver.com \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=raj.khem@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox