From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-99240-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 50005 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2019 22:45:32 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 49888 invoked by uid 89); 14 Jan 2019 22:45:22 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=vehicle, evolution, health
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Message-ID: <3ff867626ab263d456591509f57de0dc2ef99118.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NUMA spinlock [BZ #23962]
From: Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com>
To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>, Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>, 
	libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 22:45:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <479415e1-3aba-b456-fc67-0614fbd462a1@redhat.com>
References: <20181226025019.38752-1-ling.ma@MacBook-Pro-8.local>
	 <7D8A82D6-6F0A-4860-856A-EB0C8CD13E9C@antfin.com>
	 <0a474516-b8c8-48cf-aeea-e57c77b78cbd.ling.ml@antfin.com>
	 <c7f11fea-371e-4453-b5d0-9b142632aecc.ling.ml@antfin.com>
	 <8c67f319-31bf-818b-4a89-66d25328026e@arm.com>
	 <CAMe9rOrU1niqVofiFvpgvMNrUohu0yW--OBTHh3TDC-3fnG51Q@mail.gmail.com>
	 <d4b9e25e-8884-b01f-040e-b6f40e011033@redhat.com>
	 <CAMe9rOr9yeey0H2R1H6LRQxiFJ1Eu2fc+sqs+J2t1aaJBFcC5g@mail.gmail.com>
	 <87ef9oe0zf.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
	 <CAMe9rOqJu8gmrjZd10_YU7bo4gUGOETYvsE4mGd=vZK2hH4_Dg@mail.gmail.com>
	 <97275e72-dc1b-fc2a-d908-b94ef7064ed8@redhat.com>
	 <87y37siic1.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
	 <479415e1-3aba-b456-fc67-0614fbd462a1@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2019-01/txt/msg00310.txt.bz2

On Thu, 2019-01-10 at 11:41 -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 1/10/19 11:32 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Carlos O'Donell:
> > 
> > > My opinion is that for the health and evolution of a NUMA-aware spinlock
> > > and MCS lock, that we should create a distinct project and library that
> > > should have those locks, and then work to put them into downstream
> > > distributions. This will support key users being able to use supported
> > > versions of those libraries, and give the needed feedback about the API
> > > and the performance. It may take 1-2 years to get that feedback and every
> > > piece of feedback will improve the final API/ABI we put into glibc or
> > > even into the next ISO C standard as pat of the C thread interface.
> > 
> > I think it's something taht could land in tbb, for which many
> > distributions already have mechanisms to ship updated versions after a
> > release.
> 
> Absolutely. That's a great idea.
> 

I don't think tbb is a useful vehicle.  It would require that many
applications use the tbb mutexes, which I doubt is the case.