Re: [PATCH] libitm/x86: Correct offsets of __private_tm and pointer_guard

On Wed, 2018-05-30 at 07:54 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > In glibc, sysdeps/i386/nptl/tls.h has > > typedef struct > { > void *tcb;/* Pointer to the TCB. Not necessarily the >thread descriptor used by libpthread. */ > dtv_t *dtv; > void *self;

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Make std::future::wait_* use std::chrono::steady_clock when required

On Sun, 2018-01-07 at 20:55 +, Mike Crowe wrote: > This patch series was originally submitted back in September at > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-09/msg00083.html which ended up > as https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/817379/ . The patches received > no comments at all, which may mean

Re: [PATCH 2/5] libstdc++ futex: Use FUTEX_CLOCK_REALTIME for wait

On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 17:54 +, Mike Crowe wrote: > On Tuesday 09 January 2018 at 13:50:54 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 07/01/18 20:55 +, Mike Crowe wrote: > > > The futex system call supports waiting for an absolute time if > > > FUTEX_WAIT_BITSET is used rather than FUTEX_WAIT.

Re: [PATCH] Fix __atomic to not implement atomic loads with CAS.

On Fri, 2017-02-03 at 13:44 +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > __atomic_load on ARM appears to be ok as well > > except for > > __atomic_load_di which should really be the ldrexd / strexd loop but we > could ameliorate that similar to your option 3b. This uses just ldrexd now, and thus is

Re: [PATCH] Fix __atomic to not implement atomic loads with CAS.

On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 13:58 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > The other failures I saw didn't seem atomics related > > (eg, openacc) > > I suppose you're testing without nvptx offloading -- which failures do > you see for OpenACC testing? (There shouldn't be any for host fallback > testing.)

Re: [PATCH] Fix __atomic to not implement atomic loads with CAS.

On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 14:48 +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On 30/01/17 18:54, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly > > lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation. > > > > If there is no

Re: [PATCH] Fix __atomic to not implement atomic loads with CAS.

On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 19:54 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote: > This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly > lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation. After an off-list OK by Jakub, I have committed this as r245098. Jakub will take care of the

[PATCH] Fix __atomic to not implement atomic loads with CAS.

code inlined. Jakub: If this is OK for GCC 7, can you please take care of the OpenMP bits and commit this? Changelog entries are in the commit message. If others could test on other hardware, this would also be appreciated. commit 1db13cb386e673d5265bcaf2d70fc25dda22e5fd Author: Torvald Riegel

[committed] libitm: Disable TSX on processors on which it may be broken.

This fix follows the same approach that glibc uses to disable TSX on processors on which it is broken. TSX can also be disabled through a microcode update on these processors, but glibc consensus is that it cannot be detected reliably whether the microcode update has been applied. Thus, we just

Re: [gofrontend-dev] Go patch committed: Avoid warning by using a local var for std::ofstream

On Wed, 2016-09-21 at 16:56 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Torvald, would it be possible to align mutexes internally on hppa, to > avoid the 16-byte alignment of the entire struct (that is, store a > pointer to the actual mutex object, which points to a sub-region of > the struct which is suitably

Re: [PATCH] Partially improve scalability of the unwinder (PR libgcc/71744)

On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 06:05 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Jakub Jelinek writes: > > > 2016-09-15 Jakub Jelinek > > > > PR libgcc/71744 > > * unwind-dw2-fde.c (ATOMIC_FDE_FAST_PATH): Define if __register_frame* > > is not the primary registry

Re: [PATCH 3/4][PR 71931] Fix libitm tests

On Wed, 2016-08-24 at 20:08 +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > Pass build time CC make var down to dejagnu so the sysroot > is set correctly when gcc is built with --with-build-sysroot. > > libitm/ > 2016-08-24 Szabolcs Nagy > > PR testsuite/71931 > *

Re: [PATCH] PR libitm/70456: Allocate aligned memory in gtm_thread operator new

On Sat, 2016-04-02 at 09:25 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 5:34 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > > Since GTM::gtm_thread has > > > > gtm_thread *next_thread __attribute__((__aligned__(HW_CACHELINE_SIZE))); > > > > GTM::gtm_thread::operator new should allocate aligned

Re: [PING 2, PATCH] libitm: Introduce target macro TARGET_BEGIN_TRANSACTION_ATTRIBUTE.

On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 07:36 +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 02:18:48PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > The attached patch adds the a target specific attribute via the > > new target macro TARGET_BEGIN_TRANSACTION_ATTRIBUTE to the > > function begin_transaction(). S/390 uses

Re: [PATCH] libitm: Fix HTM fastpath.

On Fri, 2016-01-08 at 12:07 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote: > This patch fixes a thinko in the HTM fastpath implementation. In a > nutshell, we also need to monitor the HTM fastpath control (ie, > htm_fastpath) variable from within a HW transaction on the HTM fastpath, > so th

Re: [PATCH v2] libstdc++: Make certain exceptions transaction_safe.

On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 11:00 +0100, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > Torvald, > > Now that I can bootstrap on darwin, I have found the following failure for > libitm.c++/libstdc++-safeexc.C > > /opt/gcc/work/libitm/testsuite/libitm.c++/libstdc++-safeexc.C:50:2: error: > unsafe function call

Re: [PATCH v2] libstdc++: Make certain exceptions transaction_safe.

fe function call 'std::underflow_error::underflow_error(const string&)' > within atomic transaction > throw T (what); > ^ Does this patch fix it (ie, mark the test unsupported)? commit 259c0cf27d0a88eecc90af1aa500f88f6108cb04 Author: Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com>

[PATCH] libitm: Disable testing transaction-safe exceptions on Darwin and AIX.

ined would be > nice. Here's the patch I prepared (which indeed includes a comment). OK for trunk? I'm not quite sure whether this qualifies as a regression, but having an additional test that now fails is one I guess. commit 0323fed14832e5744cbc63bcfeeb6728f7f13394 Author: Torvald Riegel <trie

Re: [PATCH v2] libstdc++: Make certain exceptions transaction_safe.

On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 18:12 +, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 01/21/2016 06:06 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > > On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Dominique d'Humières > > wrote: > >> // { dg-do run { target { ! { *-*-darwin* powerpc-ibm-aix* } } } } > > > > A comment to hint that this has

Re: [PATCH] libitm: Disable testing transaction-safe exceptions on Darwin and AIX.

On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 18:26 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 21/01/16 10:19 -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > >On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:15 AM, Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 10:06 -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > >>> On Jan 21, 2016, at

[PATCH][committed] libitm: Remove dead code.

I missed dead code when I removed the cacheline stuff. local_type_traits hasn't been updated either, apparently leading to bootstrap issues. So we just remove more dead code. Tested fine on x86_64-linux. Committed. commit c608b69c3c49c7d29033faf328fd4d117f31fd9f Author: Torvald Riegel <t

Re: [PATCH v2] libstdc++: Make certain exceptions transaction_safe.

Jon, okay from your side if Darwin testing succeeds? commit 6987f84f278d2cbf5b828a8c81c1be84b292b1af Author: Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> Date: Tue Jan 19 18:36:14 2016 +0100 libstdc: Use weak alias instead of just alias in TM support. PR libstdc++/69310 * src/c++11/

Re: [PATCH v2] libstdc++: Make certain exceptions transaction_safe.

On Sun, 2016-01-17 at 18:30 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 2016-01-16 at 15:38 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > >> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>

Re: [PATCH v2] libstdc++: Make certain exceptions transaction_safe.

On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 14:54 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote: > On Sun, 2016-01-17 at 18:30 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, 2016-01-16 at 15:38 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > > >

Re: [PATCH v2] libstdc++: Make certain exceptions transaction_safe.

and I suppose that it should work on AIX too (but I haven't tested). Is it harmless if gnu.pre lists symbols that we don't provide? Thoughts? commit 9008d4a610dccb5ec47f9c1e506492b8615a36fd Author: Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> Date: Sun Jan 17 19:21:13 2016 +0100 libstdc++: Fix usage of

Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: Fix static_assert.

On Sun, 2016-01-17 at 17:03 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 17 January 2016 at 17:01, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 16 January 2016 at 22:47, Torvald Riegel wrote: > >> This adds a missing string argument to a call to static_assert, thus not > >> making it

[PATCH][committed] libitm: Ensure proxy privatization safety.

Author: Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> Date: Fri Nov 27 22:59:07 2015 +0100 libitm: Ensure proxy privatization safety. * method-gl.cc (gl_wt_dispatch::trycommit): Ensure proxy privatization safety. * method-ml.cc (ml_wt_dispatch::trycommit): Likewise. *

Re: [PATCH v2] libstdc++: Make certain exceptions transaction_safe.

On Sat, 2016-01-16 at 10:57 +0100, Dominique d'Humières wrote: > > Addressed these, fixed a problem with using GLIBCXX_WEAK_DEFINITION > > (which is only set on Darwin despite the generic-sounding name -- so > > just use __attribute__((weak)) directly), and also updated > > testsuite_abi.cc so

[PATCH] libstdc++: Fix static_assert.

This adds a missing string argument to a call to static_assert, thus not making it depend on c++1z extensions. This fixes the build breakage on mingw introduced in 232454. Tested on x86_64-linux. OK? commit 7659ab483954a15c8143f6b1b9d135159a2ecc67 Author: Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.

Re: [PATCH v2] libstdc++: Make certain exceptions transaction_safe.

On Sat, 2016-01-16 at 14:35 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 07:47:33AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote: > > stage1 libstdc++ builds just fine. the problem is stage2 configure > > fails due to missing ITM_xxx symbols when configure tries to compile > > and run conftest programs.

Re: [PATCH v2] libstdc++: Make certain exceptions transaction_safe.

On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 17:58 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 07/01/16 17:47 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote: > >The attached patch makes some exceptions transaction-safe, as require by > >the Transactional Memory TS. I believe I addressed all feedback for the > >previous

[PATCH][committed] libitm: Fix privatization safety interaction with serial mode.

snapshot most recent (or abort if it cannot) so that the still-active transactions that the upgrader waits for are not waiting in turn for the upgrader to update its snapshot. Tested on x86_64-linux. Committed as r232322. 2016-01-13 Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> * begin

[PATCH][committed] libitm: Fix seq-cst MOs/fences in rwlock.

optimizations of concurrent code. Tested on x86_64-linux. Committed as r232353. 2016-01-13 Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> * beginend.cc (gtm_thread::trycommit): Fix seq_cst fences. * config/linux/rwlock.cc (gtm_rwlock::write_lock_generic): Likewise. (gtm_rwlock::write_

[PATCH][committed] libitm: Remove dead code and data.

This removes code and data members that have not been used for quite a while now. The user-visible benefit is 8MB less space overhead if libitm is used. Tested on x86_64-linux and committed as r232275. 2016-01-12 Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> * libitm_i.h (gtm_mask

[PATCH] libitm: Fix HTM fastpath.

move htm_fastpath into the serial lock so that a HW transaction only needs one cacheline of HTM capacity to monitor both htm_fastpath and check that no non-HW-transaction is currently running. Tested on x86_64-linux. 2016-01-08 Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> * beginend.c

[PATCH v2] libstdc++: Make certain exceptions transaction_safe.

support and bugfixes on the compiler side). Tested on x86_64-linux and x86-linux. OK? 2016-01-07 Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> * include/bits/basic_string.h (basic_string): Declare friends. * include/bits/c++config (_GLIBCXX_TXN_SAFE, _GLIBCXX_TXN_SA

Re: [PATCH][WIP] libstdc++: Make certain exceptions transaction_safe.

On Wed, 2015-12-16 at 21:05 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > Sorry for the delay finishing this review, some of the code kept > melting my brain ;-) I know what you mean :) Thanks for the review! > On 14/11/15 20:45 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote: > >diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/config/

Re: [patch] libstdc++/68921 add timeout argument to futex(2)

On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 18:46 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > This fixes a missing argument to the futex syscall. > > Tested powerpc64le-linux. This needs to be fixed for gcc-5 and trunk. > OK. Thanks!

[COMMITTED] libitm: Use multiplicative hashing in the multi-lock TM method.

. In-depth performance testing in another implementation similar to libitm has been done before, see the URL cited in the code's comments. commit 7c6d5c7221b85fd82bcb8c59c90ae39b14883b98 Author: Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> Date: Thu Nov 26 16:52:04 2015 +0100 libitm: Use multiplicative h

[COMMITTED] libitm: Fix recent changes to allocations log.

74c5fd924fe3e8d6bececce209d00bf0523bb4dc Author: Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> Date: Sun Nov 22 21:54:24 2015 +0100 libitm: Fix recent changes to allocations log. libitm/ * libitm_i.h (gtm_alloc_action): Remove union. * testsuite/libitm.c/alloc-1.c: New. diff --git a/libitm/libi

Re: [PATCH] Transactional Memory: Support __cxa_free_exception and fix exception handling.

On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 11:18 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: > On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 09:35 -0600, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > Tested using the libitm testsuite on x86_64-linux. > > Tested on powerpc64le-linux with no regressions and I confirmed > the new eh-5.C test case passes.

[PATCH] Transactional Memory: Support __cxa_free_exception and fix exception handling.

): New. (gtm_thread::init_cpp_exceptions): Define. (_ITM_cxa_allocate_exception, _ITM_cxa_throw): Adapt. (_ITM_cxa_begin_catch, _ITM_cxa_end_catch): Likewise. (gtm_thread::revert_cpp_exceptions): Likewise. commit 23bd34e3c8028a12705a47d13a4c7aa36bfeca60 Author: Torvald

[PATCH][WIP] libstdc++: Make certain exceptions transaction_safe.

nted-out calls to _ITM_setAssociatedException in the code, which exist to show how we plan to support transaction cancellation through exceptions (which needs some more libitm support and bugfixes on the compiler side). commit e81080a01ab0daf2949a400c1a2d5077d37ba515 Author: Torvald Riegel <trie...

Re: State of support for the ISO C++ Transactional Memory TS and remanining work

On Wed, 2015-11-11 at 15:04 +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > On 10/11/15 18:29, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 17:26 +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > >> On 09/11/15 00:19, Torvald Riegel wrote: > >>> I've not yet created tests for the fu

Re: State of support for the ISO C++ Transactional Memory TS and remanining work

On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 17:26 +, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > On 09/11/15 00:19, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to summarize the current state of support for the TM TS, and > > outline the current plan for the work that remains to complete the > >

[PATCH] libitm: Support __cxa_free_exception and fix exception handling.

0a67dc5a13fd17a24fc667a251d000a73cd5159e Author: Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> Date: Tue Nov 3 15:38:22 2015 +0100 Support __cxa_free_exception and fix exception handling. diff --git a/libitm/beginend.cc b/libitm/beginend.cc index c3ed11b..86f7b39 100644 --- a/libitm/beginend.cc +++ b/

[PATCH v2] libitm: Support sized delete.

This patch supports the sized variants of operator delete. Some change compare to v1. Tested on x86_64-linux. commit df00a283f2e37bd3c69f37783fa81dde7ccf1f94 Author: Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> Date: Thu Oct 29 18:52:20 2015 +0100 Support sized delete. Thi

State of support for the ISO C++ Transactional Memory TS and remanining work

Hi, I'd like to summarize the current state of support for the TM TS, and outline the current plan for the work that remains to complete the support. I'm aware we're at the end of stage 1, but I'm confident we can still finish this work and hope to include it in GCC 6 because: (1) most of the

Re: [PATCH] libitm: Support sized delete.

On Fri, 2015-10-30 at 10:19 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > > #define _ZnwX S(_Znw,MANGLE_SIZE_T) > > #define _ZnaX S(_Zna,MANGLE_SIZE_T) > > +#define _ZdlPvXS(_ZdlPv,MANGLE_SIZE_T) > > #define _ZnwXRKSt9nothrow_t

Re: [PATCH] libitm: Support sized delete.

On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 12:38 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 10/29/2015 11:19 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > diff --git a/libitm/libitm.map b/libitm/libitm.map > > index 21bcfdf..7fc9a41 100644 > > --- a/libitm/libitm.map > > +++ b/libitm/libitm.map > >

[PATCH] libitm: Support sized delete.

for that and use non-sized dlete under the covers.) 2015-10-29 Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> * alloc_cpp.cc (_ZdlPvX, _ZdlPvXRKSt9nothrow_t, _ZGTtdlPvX, _ZGTtdlPvXRKSt9nothrow_t, delsz_opnt): New. * libitm.map: Add _ZGTtdlPvX and _ZGTtdlPvXRKSt9nothrow_t. * libi

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Add memory barriers to tbegin, tend, etc.

On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 11:52 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: > On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 16:41 +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-09-03 at 16:58 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: > >> +Note that the semantics of the above HTM builtins are required to mimic > >> the &

Re: [PATCH, rs6000] Add memory barriers to tbegin, tend, etc.

Sorry for the much delayed response. I've been sick and am slowly catching up. On Thu, 2015-09-03 at 16:58 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: > On a glibc thread discussing this issue, Torvald also asked that I add > documention describing the memory consistency semantics the HTM instructions > should

Re: [gomp4.1] Doacross library implementation

On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 20:32 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Torvald, can you please have a look at it, if I got all the atomics / memory > models right? More detailed comments below, but in general, I'd really suggest to add more code comments for the synchronization parts. In the end, the level

Re: RFC: PATCH for front end parts of C++ transactional memory TS

On Fri, 2015-10-02 at 14:13 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > The patch also doesn't attempt to do anything about the library. The > second patch sets transaction_safe on various built-ins, but without the > library support this just means references to undefined symbols. For some of the builtins,

Re: [PATCH] [PING] [PR libitm/61164] Remove redefinition of glibc internal macro __always_inline

On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 13:16 +0200, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote: On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 07:35:17PM +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote: On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 14:36 +0300, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 03:04:27PM +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote: On Wed, 2015-05-06

Re: [PATCH] [PING] [PR libitm/61164] Remove redefinition of glibc internal macro __always_inline

On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 14:36 +0300, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote: On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 03:04:27PM +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote: On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 17:54 +0300, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote: 2015-05-06 Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy gle...@altlinux.org PR libitm/61164

Re: [Patch libstdc++] Rewrite cpu/generic/atomic_word.h

On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 10:30 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwak...@redhat.com wrote: On 11/06/15 23:56 +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote: On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 12:37 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: I don't think we can remove

Re: [Patch libstdc++] Rewrite cpu/generic/atomic_word.h

On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 10:50 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: On 22/05/15 17:56, Torvald Riegel wrote: On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 12:37 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: Hi, While writing atomic_word.h for the ARM backend to fix PR target/66200 I thought it would make more sense

Re: [Patch libstdc++] Rewrite cpu/generic/atomic_word.h

On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 12:37 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: Hi, While writing atomic_word.h for the ARM backend to fix PR target/66200 I thought it would make more sense to write it all up with atomic primitives instead of providing various fragile bits of inline asssembler. Thus

Re: [PATCH] Fix memory orders description in atomic ops built-ins docs.

On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 17:41 +0100, Matthew Wahab wrote: On 21/05/15 19:26, Torvald Riegel wrote: On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 16:45 +0100, Matthew Wahab wrote: On 19/05/15 20:20, Torvald Riegel wrote: On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 17:36 +0100, Matthew Wahab wrote: Hello, On 15/05/15 17:22, Torvald

Re: [PATCH] Fix memory orders description in atomic ops built-ins docs.

On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 16:45 +0100, Matthew Wahab wrote: On 19/05/15 20:20, Torvald Riegel wrote: On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 17:36 +0100, Matthew Wahab wrote: Hello, On 15/05/15 17:22, Torvald Riegel wrote: This patch improves the documentation of the built-ins for atomic operations

Re: [PATCH] add self-tuning to x86 hardware fast path in libitm

On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 23:27 -0400, Nuno Diegues wrote: On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote: Are there better options for the utility function, or can we tune it to be less affected by varying txn length and likelihood of txnal vs. nontxnal code? What

Re: [PATCH] Fix memory orders description in atomic ops built-ins docs.

On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 17:36 +0100, Matthew Wahab wrote: Hello, On 15/05/15 17:22, Torvald Riegel wrote: This patch improves the documentation of the built-ins for atomic operations. The memory model to memory order change does improve things but I think that the patch has some

Re: [PATCH] add self-tuning to x86 hardware fast path in libitm

On Wed, 2015-04-29 at 23:23 -0400, Nuno Diegues wrote: Hello, I have taken the chance to improve the patch by addressing the comments above in this thread. Namely: - to use a simple random generator managed inside the library only - removed floating point usage and replaced by fixed

Re: [PATCH] add self-tuning to x86 hardware fast path in libitm

On Mon, 2015-05-18 at 23:39 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: Are there better options for the utility function, or can we tune it to There is nothing better that isn't a lot slower. Do you care to elaborate why? As-is, I find this statement to not be convincing; at the very least we need to

Re: [PATCH] [PR libitm/61164] Remove redefinition of glibc internal macro __always_inline

On Wed, 2015-05-06 at 17:54 +0300, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote: 2015-05-06 Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy gle...@altlinux.org PR libitm/61164 * local_atomic (__always_inline): Rename to... (__libitm_always_inline): ... this. OK. Thanks.

[PATCH] Fix memory orders description in atomic ops built-ins docs.

what we had before. There is no way we can precisely summarize the C++ memory model in the docs, and there isn't really a need either. OK for trunk? 2015-05-15 Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com * doc/extend.texi (__atomic Builtins): Use 'memory order' instead of 'memory model

Re: [patch] Fix shared_timed_mutex::try_lock_until() et al

There is an correctness issue related to mutex destruction. The added documentation is a good start, but I'd still add some more for the complicated pieces of reasoning. Details inline below. On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 15:28 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: diff --git

Re: [PATCH][AArch64] Testcase fix for __ATOMIC_CONSUME

On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 09:10 -0800, Mike Stump wrote: On Feb 9, 2015, at 7:11 AM, Alex Velenko alex.vele...@arm.com wrote: The following patch makes atomic-op-consume.c XFAIL Is this patch ok? Ok. I’d shorten the comment above the xfail to be exceedingly short: /* PR59448 consume

[patch libstdc++] Add POSIX variant of shared_timed_mutex.

-01-16 Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com * include/std/shared_mutex (shared_timed_mutex): Add POSIX-based implementation. commit e0a32ddb058d8b4dd563f89130d03bce220ace8c Author: Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com Date: Thu Jan 15 22:29:23 2015 +0100 libstdc++: Add POSIX

[patch libstdc++] Optimize synchronization in std::future if futexes are available.

to the synchronization code, but not a lot. I'm happy to do this next week if people are interested in this. Tested on x86_64-linux and the 30_threads/* tests. OK for trunk? commit 4b07d1c0ab807fd0fbedacde1e9fec99a7d75b6d Author: Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com Date: Sun Nov 16 12:07:22 2014 +0100 libstdc

Re: [PATCH] PR59448 - Promote consume to acquire

On Wed, 2015-01-14 at 10:44 -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote: I think this brings us to where we ought to be... at least almost :-) The latest version I have is n3337, which still specifies that atomic_clear can't be memory_order_acquire or memory_order_acq_rel. Has that been updated to

Re: [PATCH] PR59448 - Promote consume to acquire

On Tue, 2015-01-13 at 10:11 -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote: On 01/13/2015 09:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com wrote: Lengthy discussion : https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59448 Basically we can generate incorrect

Re: [PATCH] PR59448 - Promote consume to acquire

On Tue, 2015-01-13 at 09:56 -0500, Andrew MacLeod wrote: The problem with the patch in the PR is the memory model is immediately promoted from consume to acquire. This happens *before* any of the memmodel checks are made. If a consume is illegally specified (such as in a

[patch] [WIP] Optimize synchronization in std::future if futexes are available.

a little in some cases, as well as reduce space required for futures a little. Comments? commit 1543313a3b590e6422f5d547cabd6662e0a6f538 Author: Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com Date: Sun Nov 16 12:07:22 2014 +0100 [WIP] Optimize synchronization in std::future if futexes are available. diff

Re: [PATCH v3] PR libitm/61164: use always_inline consistently

On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 16:53 +0400, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote: -#undef __always_inline -#define __always_inline __attribute__((always_inline)) +#define __libitm_always_inline inline __attribute__((always_inline)) The previous code seems to work in libstdc++. I believe that eventually,

Re: [PATCH v3] PR libitm/61164: use always_inline consistently

On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 17:38 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 05:35:24PM +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote: On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 16:53 +0400, Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy wrote: -#undef __always_inline -#define __always_inline __attribute__((always_inline)) +#define

[COMMITTED] Add myself as maintainer for libitm.

On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 09:24 -0800, Richard Henderson wrote: On 03/03/2014 04:48 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote: Should I add myself as maintainer for libitm? Yes. Committed as r210448. commit 4da9024845f11053b56aa1318469029b044ff6d1 Author: Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com Date: Thu May 15

Re: [PATCH] Fix libitm futex handling on non-x86/ppc/sh/alpha targets

On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 22:19 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! The sys_futex0 caller expects return values as returned by raw syscalls, i.e. value = 0 success, negative value are errors -errorval. But, the syscall function returns value = 0 on success, and -1 on error, with errno set to

Re: [PATCH, LIBITM] Backport libitm bug fixes to FSF 4.8

On Fri, 2014-02-28 at 19:32 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: I'd like to ask for permission to backport the following two LIBITM bug fixes to the FSF 4.8 branch. Although these are not technically fixing regressions, they do fix the libitm.c/reentrant.c testsuite failure on s390 and powerpc (or at

Re: [PATCH] libitm: Add custom HTM fast path for RTM on x86_64.

On Mon, 2013-08-26 at 09:49 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: On 08/22/2013 02:57 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote: On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 12:05 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: On 08/22/2013 11:39 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote: + /* Store edi for future HTM fast path retries. We use a stack slot

Re: [PATCH] libitm: Add custom HTM fast path for RTM on x86_64.

On Fri, 2013-08-30 at 16:49 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote: Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com writes: On Mon, 2013-08-26 at 09:49 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: On 08/22/2013 02:57 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote: On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 12:05 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: On 08/22/2013 11:39 AM

Re: [PATCH] libitm: Add custom HTM fast path for RTM on x86_64.

428aa3302c5674326585f178409f734222edfa8b Author: Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com Date: Wed Aug 21 11:40:54 2013 +0200 Add custom HTM fast path for RTM on x86_64. * libitm_i.h (gtm_thread): Assign an asm name to serial_lock. (htm_fastpath): Assign an asm name

Re: [PATCH] libitm: Add custom HTM fast path for RTM on x86_64.

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 12:05 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: On 08/22/2013 11:39 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote: + /* Store edi for future HTM fast path retries. We use a stack slot + lower than the jmpbuf so that the jmpbuf's rip field will overlap + with the proper return address

[PATCH] libitm: Add custom HTM fast path for RTM on x86_64.

architectures, or would you like to see any changes? Torvald commit 9329bd4504d13d415542d93418157d588b599b4e Author: Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com Date: Wed Aug 21 11:40:54 2013 +0200 Add custom HTM fast path for RTM on x86_64. * libitm_i.h (gtm_thread): Assign an asm name

Re: [PATCH] libitm: Add custom HTM fast path for RTM on x86_64.

On Wed, 2013-08-21 at 10:14 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com writes: +#endif leaq8(%rsp), %rax - subq$56, %rsp - cfi_def_cfa_offset(64) + subq$64, %rsp + cfi_def_cfa_offset(72) I don't see why you did this change and the addq change

Re: [PATCH] libitm: Add custom HTM fast path for RTM on x86_64.

On Wed, 2013-08-21 at 19:41 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: That's true for x86, but it seems that for s390, we can't easily put the xbegin/tbegin into the C++ code because of floating point register save/restore issues. The added complexity on the x86 side seemed to be a reasonable price for

Re: [PATCH] S/390: Hardware transactional memory support

On Tue, 2013-08-13 at 12:09 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: On 08/13/2013 11:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 11:05:33AM -1000, Richard Henderson wrote: On 08/02/2013 04:45 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote: ! XCFLAGS=${XCFLAGS} -mzarch -mhtm -msoft-float Not good,

Re: [PATCH] S/390: Hardware transactional memory support

On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 12:23 +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote: Index: libitm/config/s390/target.h === *** libitm/config/s390/target.h.orig --- libitm/config/s390/target.h *** [...] + static inline uint32_t + htm_begin

Re: [PATCH][4.8 backport] S/390: Transactional Execution support

On Thu, 2013-08-01 at 10:55 +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote: Torvald, could you please consider adding backports of the following patches to the 4.8 branch? 19/06/13 [patch] libitm: Fix handling of reentrancy in the HTM fastpath http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-06/msg01132.html

Re: [PATCH] S/390: Hardware transactional memory support

On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 15:16 +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote: On 02/08/13 13:31, Torvald Riegel wrote: On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 12:23 +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote: Index: libitm/config/s390/target.h === *** libitm/config/s390

Re: [patch] libitm: Fix handling of reentrancy in the HTM fastpath

On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 22:13 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 00:51 +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote: On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 14:43 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: I'm having trouble seeing why/when _ITM_inTransaction() is returning something other than inIrrevocableTransaction

[patch] libitm: Fix handling of reentrancy in the HTM fastpath

can't run anyway, and we should really just finish the serial-mode transaction as fast as possible. Peter and/or Andreas: Could you please check that this fixes the bug you see on Power/s390? Thanks. Torvald commit 185af84e365e1bae31aea5afd6e67e81f3c32c72 Author: Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com

Re: [patch] libitm: Fix handling of reentrancy in the HTM fastpath

Author: Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com Date: Thu Jun 20 00:46:59 2013 +0200 libitm: Handle HTM fastpath in status query functions. diff --git a/libitm/config/x86/target.h b/libitm/config/x86/target.h index 77b627f..063c09e 100644 --- a/libitm/config/x86/target.h +++ b/libitm/config/x86

Re: [PATCH] Add faster HTM fastpath for libitm TSX v2

On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 20:19 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: next time please reply to the points raised in a review if you disagree with them, and don't just ignore them. That speeds up the review. It was all in the previous email on the topic. This v2 patch did not incorporate all the changes

Re: [PATCH] Add faster HTM fastpath for libitm TSX

On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 17:45 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: + uint32_t *__gtm_global_lock; Same, and rearrange the serial lock's fields (see below). My understanding is that C++ makes no guarantees of class layout. That is why i ended up not relying on the layout. gtm_rwlock is a POD

Re: [PATCH] Add faster HTM fastpath for libitm TSX v2

On Thu, 2013-01-24 at 19:30 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: From: Andi Kleen a...@linux.intel.com The libitm TSX hardware transaction fast path currently does quite a bit of unnecessary work (saving registers etc.) before even trying to start a hardware transaction. This patch moves the initial

Re: [PATCH] Add faster HTM fastpath for libitm TSX

On Sat, 2013-01-12 at 13:03 -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: From: Andi Kleen a...@linux.intel.com The libitm TSX hardware transaction fast path currently does quite a bit of unnecessary work (saving registers etc.) before even trying to start a hardware transaction. This patch moves the initial

Re: [PATCH] Make some asan builtins tm_pure (PR sanitizer/55508)

On Mon, 2012-12-17 at 13:52 +0400, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: resend in plain text On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Dmitry Vyukov dvyu...@google.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 10:02 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote

  1   2   3   >