Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

atomics: optimize atomic modify operations (mostly) #42017

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 2, 2021

Conversation

vtjnash
Copy link
Member

@vtjnash vtjnash commented Aug 26, 2021

Continuing the series of operations from #41859, this now gets us very close to the performance of the old Atomic type (within 2x, measured), but with far greater flexibility and features.

base/compiler/tfuncs.jl Show resolved Hide resolved
base/compiler/tfuncs.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
base/compiler/tfuncs.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Lacking inlining, but now expressing the direct invoke:
this gets us within about 2x of a primitive atomicrmw add.
@vtjnash vtjnash force-pushed the jn/optimize-atomics-3 branch from de09a23 to 85518c8 Compare September 1, 2021 17:57
@vtjnash vtjnash added the merge me PR is reviewed. Merge when all tests are passing label Sep 1, 2021
@vtjnash vtjnash merged commit 1b80634 into master Sep 2, 2021
@vtjnash vtjnash deleted the jn/optimize-atomics-3 branch September 2, 2021 19:03
@KristofferC
Copy link
Member

Should this also be backported (like the other atomic PRs)

@DilumAluthge DilumAluthge removed the merge me PR is reviewed. Merge when all tests are passing label Sep 6, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants