Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] locking: Introduce local{,64}_try_cmpxchg

[Dave Hansen]

On 4/5/23 07:17, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Add generic and target specific support for local{,64}_try_cmpxchg
> and wire up support for all targets that use local_t infrastructure.

I feel like I'm missing some context.

What are the actual end user visible effects of this series?  Is there a
measurable decrease in perf overhead?  Why go to all this trouble for
perf?  Who else will use local_try_cmpxchg()?

I'm all for improving things, and perf is an important user.  But, if
the goal here is improving performance, it would be nice to see at least
a stab at quantifying the performance delta.