Re: [PATCH 09/25] xen: Account for time stolen by Xen

On Wednesday 25 April 2007 20:13:34 Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >> +
> >> +	do {
> >> +		state_time = state->state_entry_time;
> >> +		barrier();
> >>     
> >
> > Should be likely rmb
> 
> We discussed this, and decided that it wasn't necessary.  The state is
> always updated by the current CPU, so if it changes under our feet it
> will be because we were preempted, and so that should shoot down any
> speculated reads.

Then the barrier shouldn't be needed at all? 

Anyways needs comments

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH 09/25] xen: Account for time stolen by Xen
    • From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH 00/25] xen: Xen implementation for paravirt_ops
    • From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 09/25] xen: Account for time stolen by Xen
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 09/25] xen: Account for time stolen by Xen
    • From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [00/17] Large Blocksize Support V3
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] i386: For debugging, make the initial page table setup less forgiving.
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH 09/25] xen: Account for time stolen by Xen
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 09/25] xen: Account for time stolen by Xen
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]