[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48A04968.7000805@qumranet.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:15:04 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@...il.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm-devel <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Use of barriers in pvclock ABI
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>> However, the pvclock_clocksource_read() implementation is
>> over-engineered, because it checks for an odd version and uses very
>> strong rmb() barriers (which generates either an "lfence" or "lock add
>> $0, (%esp)").
>>
>> If we're happy to guarantee as an ABI issue that the record will never
>> be updated cross-cpu, then we can make the barriers simply barrier() and
>> just check for (src->version != dst->version).
>>
>> Is that OK with you, or do you want to leave open the possibility of
>> doing cross-cpu time updates?
>>
>
> Due to the TSC being involved here I don't expect cross-cpu time updates
> will ever happen. IMHO it is fine to change that.
>
>
I agree. And if we ever feel the need, we can allocate a feature bit
for it.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists