[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1271675100.1674.818.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:05:00 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Add a global synchronization point for pvclock
On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 13:50 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/19/2010 01:39 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 13:36 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >
> >>> + do {
> >>> + last = last_value;
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Does this need a barrier() to prevent the compiler from re-reading
> >> last_value for the subsequent lines? Otherwise "(ret< last)" and
> >> "return last" could execute with different values for "last".
>
> > ACCESS_ONCE() is your friend.
> >
>
> I think it's implied with atomic64_read().
Yes it would be. I was merely trying to point out that
last = ACCESS_ONCE(last_value);
Is a narrower way of writing:
last = last_value;
barrier();
In that it need not clobber all memory locations and makes it instantly
clear what we want the barrier for.
--
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