On 4/5/23 07:17, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Add generic and target specific support for local{,64}_try_cmpxchg
> and wire up support for all targets that use local_t infrastructure.
I feel like I'm missing some context.
What are the actual end user visible effects of this series? Is there a
measurable decrease in perf overhead? Why go to all this trouble for
perf? Who else will use local_try_cmpxchg()?
I'm all for improving things, and perf is an important user. But, if
the goal here is improving performance, it would be nice to see at least
a stab at quantifying the performance delta.
