Re: [Gems-users] Backoff code in LogTM

[Jayaram Bobba <bobba@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kostis,

As far as I recall, your description is correct.

Konstantinos Nikas wrote:
> Mohammad Momin Ansari wrote
>   
> > Thanks Kostis,
> >
> > Would it be correct to suggest that moving the backoff code in  
> > TransactionInterfaceManager.c:restartTransactionCallback() so that it  
> > applies not only to XACT_LAZY_VM, and removing the backoff at the end of  
> > transaction.c:tm_log_unroll() would result in roughly equivalent  
> > functionality, i.e. wouldn't break anything?
> > Thanks,
> >
> >   
> >     
> I would say that the only difference is the actual number of cycles of 
> the backoff, as the one in TrasactionInterfaceManager stalls the 
> processor for a number of cycles while the one in the software handler 
> "spins" the processor inside a (random) loop.
> In terms of functionality, I don't see any real difference and how 
> moving the backoff call inside the interface manager would break the 
> system. On the other hand, I am sure I am not familiar with all the 
> little details of LogTM, so you should wait for someone else's 
> confirmation :-) .
> Kind regards,
>
> Kostis
>
>