From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-99102-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 111667 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2019 19:49:45 -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 111571 invoked by uid 89); 7 Jan 2019 19:49:37 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=sense
X-HELO: mail-ot1-f66.google.com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
        h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :cc;
        bh=zJw4GPENKE9A6Zo5+fLYa7o40EMT9okdntxiUKTkvdo=;
        b=jwu55Ct91yQofVw5CmizOQcvDEekbposcZOrb0y8BAroPAzh4CO8rVKBq3H8z3op87
         dWw0xbTFtD6Yjq6yr9YN3nfqk17ZzbFMPZ+BkTNo0aWw7psr+dQkVl3xXAvlXjKyW6CC
         IG6jJiFDY3hsbw8RgO36aXAib52qhYAoWlcDiXEA50wlf7rmiEeuMOR3lb2X/KbkXLJL
         Gd013Zb+BswQO4/x2JyExOfprIG1Z2XpfMb3dG00uJ33liDy+Z3wbRfY9A8/rN2D+xjw
         ExcMlDtbCA1JKShkDMsjXm7JKXb4BuSQ2U7kKzxE/oRy83r22hevn9UTBqtbPzC8EIBZ
         SfuQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
In-Reply-To: <87ef9oe0zf.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 19:49:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOqJu8gmrjZd10_YU7bo4gUGOETYvsE4mGd=vZK2hH4_Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NUMA spinlock [BZ #23962]
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com>, Szabolcs Nagy <Szabolcs.Nagy@arm.com>, 
	libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-SW-Source: 2019-01/txt/msg00172.txt.bz2

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:12 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> * 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.
>

And this lack of support doesn't make problems to go away.

-- 
H.J.