On 2015/08/20 23:16:13, binji wrote:
On 2015/08/20 at 05:19:58, jarin wrote:
> On 2015/08/19 17:36:23, binji wrote:
> >
https://codereview.chromium.org/1230303005/diff/120001/src/execution.cc
> > File src/execution.cc (right):
> >
> >
https://codereview.chromium.org/1230303005/diff/120001/src/execution.cc#newcode418
> > src/execution.cc:418: if
(isolate_->futex_wait_list_node()->waiting()) {
> > On 2015/08/19 at 05:26:05, Jarin wrote:
> > > Could we perhaps pull the waiting() check into NotifyWake?
> > >
> > > Then the waiting accessors could be private (and perhaps we could
even
pull
> > the waiting_ flag into the critical section and make it non-atomic).
> >
> > My thought here was to do a quick check to avoid taking a lock if
there is
no
> > futex waiting (which is the common case). What do you think?
>
> Yeah, that's what I thought. However, locks are cheap, interrupts are
rare
and
atomics are scary. Up to you.
Ah, good call. I was mistakenly thinking this was a lock grabbed in
HandleInterrupts, not RequestInterrupt.
Thanks! lgtm.
Let's see what the fuzzer thinks :-)
https://codereview.chromium.org/1230303005/
--
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
