[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <685113ad-c337-8207-89f6-1a0b475c44fb@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:26:59 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Minfei Huang <mnghuan@...il.com>
Cc: bp@...e.de, luto@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3 V2] pvclock: Get rid of __pvclock_read_cycles in
function pvclock_read_flags
On 09/06/2016 14:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 08:27:43PM +0800, Minfei Huang wrote:
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/pvclock.c
>> @@ -61,11 +61,14 @@ void pvclock_resume(void)
>> u8 pvclock_read_flags(struct pvclock_vcpu_time_info *src)
>> {
>> unsigned version;
>> - cycle_t ret;
>> u8 flags;
>>
>> do {
>> - version = __pvclock_read_cycles(src, &ret, &flags);
>> + version = src->version;
>> + /* Make the latest version visible */
>> + smp_rmb();
>> +
>> + flags = src->flags;
>
> Using a seqcount to load a single byte is insane ;-)
Only if you know that the writer will not write that byte twice within a
critical section...
Which I guess we do know in this case because the write side is just a
memcpy, but it's still a bit safer when it's not specified by the
pvclock API. It's not a fast path anyway, it runs literally twice at
startup.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists