On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 21:54 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I'm not sure this is quite true. If a libitm-executed transaction is
>
> It's just a convention. You don't have to use it.
That's true ...
> Not doing it will
> just make abort profiling harder.
... but I disagree with this one. This wo
> I'm not sure this is quite true. If a libitm-executed transaction is
It's just a convention. You don't have to use it. Not doing it will
just make abort profiling harder.
-Andi
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 10:24 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Torvald Riegel writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 17:23 -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >> + // Honor an abort from abortTransaction.
> >> + else if (htm_abort_is_cancel(ret))
> >> + return a_abortTransaction | a_
Torvald Riegel writes:
> On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 17:23 -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> + // Honor an abort from abortTransaction.
>> + else if (htm_abort_is_cancel(ret))
>> + return a_abortTransaction | a_restoreLiveVariables;
>
> The problem is that we cannot reliably
Torvald Riegel writes:
>
> I'm not sure this is quite true. If a libitm-executed transaction is
> started from within some other transactional region (e.g., managed
> explicitly by the user), and those two disagree about what is an abort
> that should be retried or not, then this can at least hav
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 20:34 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Richard Henderson writes:
> >
> > static inline void
> > -htm_abort ()
> > +htm_abort_retry ()
> > {
> >// ??? According to a yet unpublished ABI rule, 0xff is reserved and
> >// supposed to signal a busy lock. Source: andi.kl...@
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 17:23 -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> + // Honor an abort from abortTransaction.
> + else if (htm_abort_is_cancel(ret))
> + return a_abortTransaction | a_restoreLiveVariables;
The problem is that we cannot reliably detect whether an abort with a
ce
On 2012-11-08 17:23, Richard Henderson wrote:
> I believe this is the sort of patch that Torvald was talking about
> for handling abortTransaction with RTM.
FYI, I realized that this patch doesn't handle aborts on a
nested transaction properly.
r~
Richard Henderson writes:
>
> static inline void
> -htm_abort ()
> +htm_abort_retry ()
> {
>// ??? According to a yet unpublished ABI rule, 0xff is reserved and
>// supposed to signal a busy lock. Source: andi.kl...@intel.com
>_xabort(0xff);
> }
>
> +static inline void
> +htm_a
