[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53FD8FBA.1040203@suse.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:58:50 +0200
From: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
To: Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
CC: "jeremy@...p.org" <jeremy@...p.org>,
KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
"chrisw@...s-sol.org" <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sync_set_bit() vs set_bit() -- what's the difference?
On 08/27/2014 09:50 AM, Dexuan Cui wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Beulich
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 15:39 PM
>>>>> On 27.08.14 at 09:30, <decui@...rosoft.com> wrote:
>>> I'm curious about the difference. :-)
>>>
>>> sync_set_bit() is only used in drivers/hv/ and drivers/xen/ while set_bit()
>>> is used in all other places. What makes hv/xen special?
>>
>> I guess this would really want to be used by anything communicating
>> with a hypervisor or a remote driver: set_bit() gets its LOCK prefix
>> discarded when the local kernel determines it runs on a single CPU
>> only. Obviously having knowledge of the CPU count inside a VM does
>> not imply anything about the number of CPUs available to the host,
>> i.e. stripping LOCK prefixes in that case would be unsafe.
>>
>> Jan
>
> Thank you, Juergen and Jan for your quick answers!
>
> I didn't realize LOCK_PREFIX is "" for UP. :-)
Even worse: it is patched away dynamically when you disable all but one
processor and activated again when a second processor is becoming
active.
Juergen
--
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