From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-99100-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 14583 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2019 19:12:13 -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 14568 invoked by uid 89); 7 Jan 2019 19:12:12 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=sense
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Cc: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com>,  Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>,  libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NUMA spinlock [BZ #23962]
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>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 19:12:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <CAMe9rOr9yeey0H2R1H6LRQxiFJ1Eu2fc+sqs+J2t1aaJBFcC5g@mail.gmail.com>
	(H. J. Lu's message of "Sat, 5 Jan 2019 08:35:45 -0800")
Message-ID: <87ef9oe0zf.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-SW-Source: 2019-01/txt/msg00170.txt.bz2

* H. J. Lu:

> Should glibc have scalable spinlock, in libc.so or a separate shared object?
> Or should we tell people that if they want scalable spinlock, they look
> elsewhere?

I think non-polymorphic, small lock types with scoped locking could make
sense for glibc.

A lock specific to a certain machine architecture seems strange.  We
currently lack any of the kernel NUMA interfaces in glibc, which makes
this stand out even more.

Thanks,
Florian