On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 7:44 AM, Tom Hacohen <t...@osg.samsung.com> wrote: > On 02/09/16 15:40, Cedric BAIL wrote: >> On Sep 2, 2016 07:15, "Tom Hacohen" <t...@osg.samsung.com> wrote: >>> Good job trying to tackle it, but this is wrong. >>> >>> This is not thread-safe and the Eo infrastructure should be. So >>> essentially, this optimisation is not allowed. You could maybe do a >>> cache per-thread, raster claims that __thread is actually quite alright >>> nowadays with GCC, I'm not sure, but this, and the following patch >>> should be reverted. >>> >>> If you have anything to say to defend this approach, please do so by >>> Monday, otherwise I'll revert both patches then. >> >> Raster has already added lock around all the use of it. There is maybe one >> missing on isa will check later today. > > Ah missed that. Sorry, catching up with things. > > Is it still an improvement, even with the lock?
A little bit, but clearly not as much. Will land another patch for efl_isa with spinlock, but we should try with thread local variable. It would pay off more for two reason, first the cache will be per thread so preserving it more efficiently and second thread local storage is faster than spinlock. The only issue is that we need to invalidate all thread local storage on eoid destruction and I don't know how to do that yet. -- Cedric BAIL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
