This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Add GLIBC_PTHREAD_ELISION_ENABLE tunable
- From: "Paul E. Murphy" <murphyp at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: "libc-alpha at sourceware dot org" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, Steve Munroe <sjmunroe at us dot ibm dot com>, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, stli at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com, Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, vapier at gentoo dot org
- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 09:23:48 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add GLIBC_PTHREAD_ELISION_ENABLE tunable
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55F33220 dot 8050105 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20150917043712 dot GA6834 at vapier dot lan>
On 09/16/2015 11:37 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2015 14:57, Paul E. Murphy wrote:
>> + /* Check environment to see if we should enable LE. */
>> + for (; *environ != NULL; environ++)
>> + if (strcmp (*environ, "GLIBC_PTHREAD_ELISION_ENABLE=yes") == 0)
>> + __pthread_force_elision = __libc_enable_secure ? 0 : elision_available;
>
> there should be a new internal header for checking the values of tunables so
> that we don't end up with lots of duplication (like this patch already does).
> for the functions that cannot call getenv, there should be a static inline
> function that they can call (which i imagine would look like this).
I don't disagree with your idea. However, such work impinges on the tunable
work by Siddhesh. My intention is the simplest scaffolding while we wait out
the tunables framework.
This patch attempts to answer the following outstanding community questions:
1. Should we be using a single envvar vs multiple?
2. Should we be using GLIBC_ vs. GNU_ prefix?
3. Does the manual page sufficiently document tunables?
AFAIK, we still lack consensus and input on 1 and 2.
BR,
Paul