On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 17:51 +0200, Patrick Marlier wrote: >>>Dear Patrick, >>> I am currently searching for a pipeline in a TM-Benchmarks but I can >>>not overlap the concept of transactions with pipeline in current TM >>>benchmarks. I think I will write a new one.
> Dear Ismail, > > On Fri, 6 May 2011, ismail wrote: > >> TinySTM 1.0 uses implicit transaction descriptor by default (same as > >> 0.9.9) but you can compile it with EXPLICIT_TX_PARAMETER (Makefile) and > >> then the transaction descriptor is explicit. > >> But functions are the same from 0.9.9 to 1.0.0 so I don't really see the > >> problem. > > --- Yes . thanks for update , I remembered . Also I wrote the version > > wrong it is "0.9.0b1 release". There should be a parameter like > > EXPLICIT_TX_PARAMETER in trans-mem. Did you need a kind of parameter > > --- while compiling the trans-mem branch ? For example to use trans-mem to > > transactify LeeTM (I am especially talking about the MEMSET and MEMCPY > > funcs. of trans-mem do not have transaction identifier while accessing to > > the mem.). > > --- I am currently using the explicit function calls when I need > > transaction identifier as the following. > > Humm... libitm is always using implicit transaction descriptor and there > is no such flag as in TinySTM. >>>I am clear with tx-iden. and tx-desc. Do you think that not having explicit tx_desc. is a handicap while converting conventional locking systems to the TM model? (I am having some trouble while dealing with benchmarks) > > Don't confuse transaction descriptor and transaction identifier. > I think it is better to use always implicit transaction descriptor it > avoids the burden to manage it. > > > --- I tried to get transaction handler which does not ---have explicit > > ---descriptor where another function needs transaction ---descriptor as > > ---a parameter. > > Hummm... which one has explicit tx descriptor? > All ITM functions are using implicit transaction descriptor as far as I > remember, otherwise it is a bit odd. >>> I have mixed tx_descriptor because of IntelTM ABI's specification. Yes there is just the following in the libitm: >>>typedef uint64_t _ITM_transactionId_t;/* Transaction identifier */ >>>#define _ITM_noTransactionId 1 /* Id for non-transactional code. */ >>>extern _ITM_transactionId_t _ITM_getTransactionId(void) >>>ITM_REGPARM; >>>BTW It may seem a general question but we are trying to figure out >>>several issues related with following question . It would be great If >>>you can share your opinion: >>>what are the main challenges right now w.r.t. transmem in C (we do >>>not care much about C++ at this point), and what are his expectations >>>and plans about exploitation of OpenMP with TM. > >>>THANKS A LOT >>> Ismail KURU > Patrick.
