[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1271688411.1488.248.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:46:51 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, 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 17:33 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 04/19/2010 05:21 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> >
> >> Oh yes, just trying to avoid a patch with both atomic64_read() and
> >> ACCESS_ONCE().
> >>
> > you're mixing the private version of the patch you saw with this one.
> > there isn't any atomic reads in here. I'll use a barrier then
> >
>
> This patch writes last_value atomically, but reads it non-atomically. A
> barrier is insufficient.
What avi says! :-)
On a 32bit machine a 64bit read are two 32bit reads, so
last = last_value;
becomes:
last.high = last_value.high;
last.low = last_vlue.low;
(or the reverse of course)
Now imagine a write getting interleaved with that ;-)
--
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