Progress64 benchmarks #850
Conversation
Signed-off-by: StefanoDalMas <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: StefanoDalMas <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: StefanoDalMas <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: StefanoDalMas <[email protected]>
StefanoDalMas
force-pushed
the
progress64Benchmarks
branch
from
5eefd69 to
8032954
Compare
Signed-off-by: StefanoDalMas <[email protected]>
| return NULL; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| int main(void) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is this a good test for seqlock? Take a look to this. We should definitely use more than a single writer and a single reader.
| return NULL; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| int main() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is not a good test for a read-write lock. Take a look to this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It doesn't even comile, no? Where are lock, x, y defined?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ah! I think I added the definition of those two in the src file, adding that now
| @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ | |||
| # How to generate LLVM files with Inline Asm with Progress64 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ThomasHaas can you try this on your arm machine to check the documentation is correct?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ThomasHaas can you try this on your arm machine to check the documentation is correct?
rwlock.c doesn't compile because it misses definitions for the shared variables.
For seqlock.c I get this error:
/Users/thomashaas/ExternalTools/progress64/src/arch/ldxstx.h:223:24: error: controlling expression type 'uintptr_t *' (aka 'unsigned long *') not compatible with any generic association type
return (void *)ldx((uintptr_t *)var, mm);
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/Users/thomashaas/ExternalTools/progress64/src/arch/ldxstx.h:203:11: note: expanded from macro 'ldx'
_Generic((var), \
^~~
/Users/thomashaas/ExternalTools/progress64/src/arch/ldxstx.h:227:16: error: controlling expression type 'uintptr_t *' (aka 'unsigned long *') not compatible with any generic association type
return stx((uintptr_t *)var, (uintptr_t)val, mm);
And a bunch of warnings that the assembly uses wrong register sizes:
/Users/thomashaas/ExternalTools/progress64/src/arch/ldxstx.h:195:27: warning: value size does not match register size specified by the constraint and modifier [-Wasm-operand-widths]
: "r" (neu), "r" (var)
^
/Users/thomashaas/ExternalTools/progress64/src/arch/ldxstx.h:193:35: note: use constraint modifier "w"
__asm volatile("stxp %w0, %1, %H1, [%2]"
^~~
%wH1
These are all errors/warnings inside progress64, so I don't know how much we can do about it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
as Clang complains at times when GCC does not , in order to make that work I had to tweak some lines in the file which contains the inline asm
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a huge red flag. We should keep changes to a minimal and if changes are indeed needed we need to
- provide a patch so someone else can regenerate the llvm files if needed
- document why the change is indeed needed
This PR adds benchmarks and tests from Progress64 by ARM.
At the moment only the clients which do not use mixed size concurrency instructions are inserted.