Re: [rfc: cpuops adv V1 3/8] x86: this_cpu_cmpxchg and this_cpu_cmpxchg_double operations

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Avi Kivity
Date: Monday, December 6, 2010 - 10:14 am

On 12/02/2010 11:53 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote:

Perhaps we can use cmpxchg instead of xchg to avoid this? costs one more 
instruction but may be worth it.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[rfc: cpuops adv V1 0/8] Cmpxchg and xchg support for cpu ops, Christoph Lameter, (Thu Dec 2, 2:53 pm)
[rfc: cpuops adv V1 7/8] slub: Add PageSlubPartial, Christoph Lameter, (Thu Dec 2, 2:53 pm)
[rfc: cpuops adv V1 2/8] Fallback to atomic xchg, cmpxchg, Christoph Lameter, (Thu Dec 2, 3:06 pm)
Re: [rfc: cpuops adv V1 0/8] Cmpxchg and xchg support for ..., Christoph Lameter, (Mon Dec 6, 8:51 am)
Re: [rfc: cpuops adv V1 0/8] Cmpxchg and xchg support for ..., Christoph Lameter, (Mon Dec 6, 8:52 am)
Re: [rfc: cpuops adv V1 3/8] x86: this_cpu_cmpxchg and thi ..., Avi Kivity, (Mon Dec 6, 10:14 am)
Re: [rfc: cpuops adv V1 3/8] x86: this_cpu_cmpxchg and thi ..., Christoph Lameter, (Mon Dec 6, 10:35 am)